Claiborne v. Blauser et al
Filing
38
ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/12/2011 DENYING plaintiff's 32 Motion for Reconsideration of 29 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations. (Marciel, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
DENNIS G. CLAIBORNE,
Plaintiff,
11
12
vs.
13
No. CIV S-10-2427 LKK EFB P
BLAUSER, et al.,
14
Defendants.
/
15
16
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action
17
seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 29, 2011, the undersigned denied
18
plaintiff’s requests for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Plaintiff moves
19
for reconsideration of that order.
20
Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court,
21
Frito-Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981),
22
considerations of judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus, Local Rule 230(j)
23
requires that a party seeking reconsideration of a district court’s order must brief the “new or
24
different facts or circumstances [which] were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other
25
grounds exist for the motion.” The rule derives from the “law of the case” doctrine which
26
provides that the decisions on legal issues made in a case “should be followed unless there is
substantially different evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly
1
erroneous and would result in injustice.” Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d
2
391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985), cert.
3
denied, 475 U.S. 1064 (1986).
4
Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the
5
alteration or amendment of a judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle
6
permitting the unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present
7
“contentions which might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v.
8
United States, 765 F.Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D.Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d
9
1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986); Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280
10
(E.D. Pa. 1991). These holdings “reflect[] district courts’ concerns for preserving dwindling
11
resources and promoting judicial efficiency.” Costello, 765 F.Supp. at 1009.
12
13
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any new or different facts or circumstances
which would entitle him to the requested injunctive relief, and thus, his motion is denied.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
14
15
is DENIED.
16
DATED: December 12, 2011.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
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?