Sloan v. Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
Filing
40
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 12/04/17 DENYING plaintiff's 37 Motion for Reconsideration; any further motions for reconsideration of the order imposing a page limit on plaintiff's amended complaint will be disregarded. (Benson, A.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOHNNY LEE SLOAN, JR.,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 2:15-cv-1921 MCE AC P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
On October 10, 2017, the undersigned denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the
19
magistrate judge’s September 6, 2017 order dismissing plaintiff’s first amended complaint with
20
leave to amend. ECF No. 35. Plaintiff has now filed a “motion for leave to file motion for
21
reconsideration to objection,” which appears to simply be a motion for reconsideration of the
22
court’s October 10, 2017 order denying his previous motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 37.
23
Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or different facts or
24
circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion,
25
or what other grounds exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not
26
shown at the time of the prior motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4). Plaintiff’s only argument is that he
27
should not be subject to a twenty-five-page limit on his amended complaint because he is not
28
1
participating in the e-filing program.1 ECF No. 37. This is the same argument he made in
2
seeking reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order. ECF No. 32. This does not meet the
3
requirements for a motion for reconsideration or warrant a different outcome.
4
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 37) is DENIED.
6
2. Any further motions for reconsideration of the order imposing a page limit on
7
plaintiff’s amended complaint will be disregarded.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 4, 2017
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The court notes that plaintiff was not limited to twenty-five pages because he was
participating in the e-filing program. The page limit was imposed because plaintiff filed amended
complaints that were 92 and 121 pages long and violated Rule 8’s short, plain statement
requirement. ECF No. 31.
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?