Givens v. County of Sacramento, et al.

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/12/2016 DENYING 30 Request for Reconsideration. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANCOIS P. GIVENS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-0720-JAM-KJN PS

v.

ORDER

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On November 7, 2016, the court issued a 13-page order analyzing the claims asserted in

17
18

plaintiff’s first amended complaint, and directing that this action shall proceed with the following

19

claims: (a) an excessive force claim in violation of the Fourth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

20

§ 1983 against defendants Taylor and Becker; (b) a retaliatory arrest claim in violation of the First

21

Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Taylor and Becker; and (c) a claim

22

under Title II of the ADA against the County of Sacramento. For the reasons extensively

23

discussed in that order, all other claims and defendants were dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No.

24

25.)

25

On December 5, 2016, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the court’s

26

November 7, 2016 order. (ECF No. 30.) More specifically, plaintiff contends that the court

27

should reinstate plaintiff’s claims against defendants Jones, Witherspoon, and Torretta, and also

28

allow him leave to assert additional claims against a deputy clerk at the Sacramento County
1

1

Superior Court and other sheriff’s deputies. Upon requesting reconsideration of a prior order, a

2

party must show, inter alia, “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist

3

which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the

4

motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j). The court has carefully reviewed plaintiff’s arguments, but finds

5

that they lack merit and/or do not affect the court’s analysis in its prior November 7, 2016 order.

6

Therefore, the court denies the request for reconsideration.

7

No further requests for reconsideration with respect to the November 7, 2016 order will be

8

entertained, and plaintiff is strongly encouraged to focus his efforts on the prosecution of his

9

remaining active claims.

10

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

11

No. 30) is DENIED.

12

Dated: December 12, 2016

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2