Haraszewski v. Knipp

Filing 144

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 11/15/2020 DENYING plaintiff's 141 request for reconsideration. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

H. DYMITRI HARASZEWSKI,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-2494 JAM DB P

v.

ORDER

KNIPP, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §

18

1983. On September 15, 2020, this court issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion to inspect

19

sealed documents. (ECF No. 139.) On October 23, 2020, plaintiff filed a request for

20

reconsideration of that order. (ECF No. 141.) Defendants have filed an opposition. (ECF No.

21

143.)

22

While defendants construe plaintiff’s motion as seeking reconsideration by the district

23

judge, plaintiff makes clear that he is asking this court to “reconsider its denial of [his] motion to

24

unseal documents.” A motion for reconsideration must demonstrate: “what new or different facts

25

or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior

26

motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and [] why the facts or circumstances were

27

not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. R. 230(j)(3), (4). Plaintiff makes no

28

attempt to meet this standard. He does not explain why he failed to make these arguments
1

1

previously. Even if this court considers those arguments, they do not change this court’s denial of

2

plaintiff’s motion to unseal the exhibits.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for reconsideration (ECF

4

No. 141) is denied.

5

Dated: November 15, 2020

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

DLB:9
DB/prisoner-civil rights/hara2494.recon

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2