Townsend v. Sisto et al
Filing
12
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/19/09 ORDERING that petitioner's 9 motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Yin, K)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
2/town2342.rec
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM TOWNSEND, Plaintiff, vs. D.K. SISTO, et al., Defendants. / ORDER No. CIV S-09-2342 KJM P
On September 21, 2009, this court denied petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel. Petitioner has now filed a motion to reconsider that order. Under Local Rule 78-230(k), a person who seeks reconsideration of an order must describe the "new or different facts or circumstances" which "did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion. . . ." Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is supported by a number of attachments, which were also included with the initial motion, and is based only on the arguments he presented in the initial motion. He has not shown any basis for reconsideration of the earlier ruling. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's motion for reconsideration (docket no. 9) is denied. DATED: November 19, 2009.
1
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
