Davenport v. Lee et al

Filing 77

ORDER denying 69 Motion for reconsideration signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/27/12. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

RONALD DAVENPORT,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. 2:09-cv-3091 GEB EFB P

BEN LEE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

17

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 28, 2012, the undersigned granted summary

18

judgment in favor of defendants Lee, Reddy, Bal,. Dunlap, and Torruella. Plaintiff moves for

19

reconsideration of that order.

20

Reconsideration is appropriate if the court (1) is presented with newly discovered

21

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is

22

an intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

23

(9th Cir. 1993). Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or

24

different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon

25

///

26

///

1

such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or

2

circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal., Local Rule 230(j)(3)-

3

(4).

4
5
6

Plaintiff’s motion does not describe new or different facts or circumstances that
would warrant reconsideration of the court’s March 28, 2012 order.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s June 11, 2012 motion for

7

reconsideration (Dckt. No. 69) is DENIED.

8

Dated: June 27, 2012

9
10
11

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2