Morris v. Nangalama et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying 28 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 9/20/13. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEON E. MORRIS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, No. 2:12-cv-01202 MCE KJN ORDER v. NANGALAMA et. al., Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second Motion to Reconsider a Court 18 Order. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights 19 action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 13, 2013, the Court adopted the 20 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations which included revoking Plaintiff’s 21 in forma pauperis status. (ECF No. 25.) On May 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to 22 Reconsider asking the Court to review its May 13 Order, which the Court denied on 23 August 29, 2013. (ECF Nos. 26 and 27.) On September 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed another 24 Motion to Reconsider. (ECF No. 28.) In it, Plaintiff alleges that in a contemporaneous 25 prisoner civil rights case he filed, Judge Karlton concluded that Plaintiff can proceed 26 in forma pauperis. Morris v. Daly, No 12-cv-2845 (E.D. Cal. filed Nov. 20, 2012). A 27 party seeking reconsideration must set out the material facts and circumstances that 28 were not shown at the prior motion. Local Rule 230(j). 1 1 Here, Judge Karlton reached a different decision after reviewing similar facts, but his 2 disagreement with the Court is not a material fact that warrants the Court to reconsider 3 its previous decision. “The doctrine of stare decisis does not compel one district court 4 judge to follow the decision of another.” In re Silverman 616 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir. 5 2010) (citing Starbuck v. City and County of San Francisco, 556 F.2d 450, 457 6 (9th Cir.1977). For the reasons described above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider is 7 DENIED. (ECF No. 28.) 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: September 20, 2013 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?