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)
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?