Villacres v. California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 20

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 5/26/2017 DENYING 19 Objections to Findings and Recommendations construed as Motion for Reconsideration of 18 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES D. VILLACRES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-0305 JAM AC P

v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendant.

16
17

On April 12, 2017, the Clerk of the Court filed plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of
18
the order adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and dismissing various
19

portions of the complaint without leave to amend (ECF No. 18).1 ECF No. 19. Local Rule 230(j)

20
requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or different facts or circumstances are
21
claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other
22
grounds exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time
23
of the prior motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4). Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration does not put forth
24
any new evidence or law and merely rehashes the arguments made in his complaint.
25
26
27
28

1

Although the motion is captioned as objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations, it was filed well after the time for filing objections had passed and has a copy
of the order adopting the findings and recommendations attached as an exhibit. ECF No. 19 at 910.
1

1

Accordingly, he has not meet the requirements for a motion for reconsideration or shown that a

2

different outcome is warranted.

3

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF

4

No. 19) is denied.

5

DATED: May 26, 2017

6

/s/ John A. Mendez_______________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2