Manago v. Cate et al

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/6/2012 ORDERING that, upon reconsideration, this court's order of 5/1/12 is AFFIRMED. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

STEWART MANAGO,

11

Plaintiff,

12

No. 2:12-cv-0966 GGH P

vs.

13

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

14

Defendants.
/

15
16

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a request for reconsideration of this court’s order filed May 1,

17

2012, where plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied as plaintiff is three

18

strikes barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to

19

plaintiff’s consent. Doc. 5.

20
21

Standards For Motions To Reconsider
Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court,

22

Frito-Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981),

23

considerations of judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus Local Rule 230(j)

24

requires that a party seeking reconsideration of a district court’s order must brief the “new or

25

different facts or circumstances [which] were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other

26

grounds exist for the motion.” The rule derives from the “law of the case” doctrine which

1

provides that the decisions on legal issues made in a case “should be followed unless there is

2

substantially different evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly

3

erroneous and would result in injustice.” Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d

4

391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985), cert.

5

denied, 475 U.S. 1064 (1986).

6

Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the

7

alteration or amendment of a judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle

8

permitting the unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present

9

“contentions which might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United

10

States, 765 F.Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260,

11

1268 (7th Cir. 1986); Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa.

12

1991). These holdings “reflect[] district courts’ concerns for preserving dwindling resources and

13

promoting judicial efficiency.” Costello, 765 F.Supp. at 1009.

14

In the instant action, plaintiff has not raised any new arguments; rather he repeats

15

the same allegations presented in the complaint regarding how he is in imminent danger, that the

16

court addressed before.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, this court’s

17
18

order of May 1, 2012, is affirmed.

19

DATED: June 6, 2012
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21

GGH: AB
mana0966.850

22
23
24
25
26
2