Williams v. Swarthout et al
Filing
11
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/20/11 ORDERING that upon reconsideration, this courts 9 order of 7/25/11 is AFFIRMED.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
MARIO A. WILLIAMS,
11
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
No. CIV S-11-1687 GGH P
vs.
GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
/
Plaintiff has filed a request for reconsideration of this court’s order filed July 25,
17
2011, dismissing the first amended complaint with leave to amend. This case is before the
18
undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. Doc. 5.
19
20
Standards For Motions To Reconsider
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
1
substantially different evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly
2
erroneous and would result in injustice.” Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d
3
391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985), cert.
4
denied, 475 U.S. 1064 (1986).
5
Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the
6
alteration or amendment of a judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle
7
permitting the unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present
8
“contentions which might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United
9
States, 765 F.Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D.Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268
10
(7th Cir. 1986); Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991).
11
These holdings “reflect[] district courts’ concerns for preserving dwindling resources and
12
promoting judicial efficiency.” Costello, 765 F.Supp. at 1009.
13
In the instant action, plaintiff has raised now new or different facts and simply
14
disagrees with the court’s decision. Plaintiff’s motion is denied, but he may still file a second
15
amended complaint.
16
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, this court’s
17
order of July 25, 2011 is affirmed.
18
DATED: September 20, 2011
19
20
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
GGH: AB
will1687.850
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?