Adams v. Easley et al

Filing 149

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 05/29/12 ORDERING that plaintiff's 128 , 129 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 Motions are STRICKEN; plaintiff's 126 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

Tyrone Adams,

9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11

Charles Easley, et al.,

12

Defendants.
________________________________

13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-0826-GEB-CKD
ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENTS FROM
THE RECORD; DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION*

14

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed fifteen motions between

15

April 23, 2012 and May 10, 2012. In each motion Plaintiff is seeking

16

reconsideration of the order dismissing his second amended complaint

17

without leave to amend.

18

judgment was entered in favor of Defendants.

Following entry of this dismissal order,

19

Plaintiff’s numerous and duplicative filings are in violation

20

of a January 4, 2012 Order (ECF No. 87) in which the following is

21

stated:
The multiplicity of plaintiff’s filings are a
burden on both the court and defendants and impede
the proper prosecution and defense of this action.
Plaintiff’s future filings shall therefore be
limited.

22
23
24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT . . .
Plaintiff may only file the following documents:

25
26

. . . .

27
28

*

argument.

This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral
E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).
1

1
Only one motion pending at any time. Such
motion must be properly noticed for hearing.
Plaintiff is limited to one memorandum of points
and authorities in support of the motion and one
reply to any opposition . . . .

2
3
4

Failure to comply with this order shall result
in improperly filed documents being stricken from
the record . . . .

5
6
7

Therefore,

Plaintiff’s

first

motion

for

reconsideration,

8

docketed as ECF Number 126, will be considered. The remainder of

9

Plaintiff’s filings, docketed as ECF Numbers 127-129, 133-137 and 139-

10

142 are stricken from the record.

11

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, . . .

12

unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence,

13

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the

14

controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH &

15

Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

16

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration fails to satisfy this

17

standard, and is therefore denied.

18

Dated:

May 29, 2012

19
20
21

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2