Lavery v. Dhillon
Filing
66
ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/30/2015 DENYING plaintiff's 63 motion for reconsideration. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSEPH LAVERY,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
v.
No. 2:13-cv-2083-MCE-AC P
ORDER
B. DHILLON, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed
18
numerous documents with the Court detailing his difficulty in prosecuting his case due to
19
his degenerative arthritis and has repeatedly requested appointment of counsel. See
20
ECF Nos. 38, 40, 45, 48, 49, 51, 54, 55. On June 16, 2015, the assigned magistrate
21
judge issued an order denying Plaintiff’s requests for appointment of counsel. ECF No.
22
59. However, the magistrate judge requested further briefing from the Deputy Attorney
23
General regarding what reasonable accommodations, if any, are currently being
24
provided to Plaintiff to assist him with writing. The June 16, 2015 order also addressed
25
Plaintiff’s request for a court order regarding access to legal supplies, a request for the
26
status of a missing filing, and a request for a sixty-day extension, finding the three
27
requests too ambiguous to grant. Id. On June 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
28
Reconsideration of the June 16, 2015 order. ECF No. 63.
1
1
Pursuant to Local Rule 303(f), Plaintiff is entitled to reconsideration if the
2
magistrate judge’s decision is either “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See 28
3
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). In applying the clearly erroneous standard, this Court will not
4
reverse the magistrate judge’s order simply because the Court “would have decided the
5
case differently.” Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). “Rather, a
6
reviewing court must ask whether, ‘on the entire evidence,’ it is ‘left with the definite and
7
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234,
8
242 (2001) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395
9
(1948)). Motions for reconsideration are therefore not intended to “give an unhappy
10
litigant one additional chance to sway the judge.” Kilgore v. Colvin, No. 2:12-cv-1792-
11
CKD, 2013 WL 5425313, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2013). Additionally, motions for
12
reconsideration should not be used to raise arguments or present evidence that could
13
have reasonably been raised or presented earlier. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos
14
Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff first argues that there is a factual error in the order. In discussing
15
16
Plaintiff’s allegations that he was having trouble prosecuting his case, the assigned
17
magistrate noted that “Plaintiff recently received a Monday through Friday prison work
18
assignment and is only able to go to the law library on Saturday and Sunday, when the
19
library technician and other inmate assistants are not working.” Order, ECF No. 59, at 2.
20
In his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff notes that he received this full-time work
21
assignment back in August 21, 2014, not “recently” as stated in the order. Mot., ECF
22
No. 63, at 1. This corrected fact does not convince the Court that the magistrate judge’s
23
response—a request for further briefing from the Deputy Attorney General—was in error.
The briefing by the Deputy Attorney General should also address Plaintiff’s next
24
25
argument that he has been denied access to a typewriter despite having a
26
Comprehensive Accommodation Chrono stating that Plaintiff needs a typewriter. See
27
ECF No. 63 at 5. Presumably, Plaintiff’s issues with access to paper for the typewriter
28
///
2
1
will also be addressed because, as Plaintiff notes, a typewriter is useless without paper.
2
Id. at 3.
3
Finally, Plaintiff argues that he has not been receiving “priority (preferred legal
4
user) ducat/passes.” This claim was not addressed in the June 16, 2015 order and is
5
therefore not appropriate for review on a Motion for Reconsideration. See Marlyn
6
Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880.
7
8
9
10
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 63)
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 30, 2015
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?