Watts v. Malak et al.

Filing 22

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 9/28/2017 DENYING 17 Motion for Reconsideration. (Donati, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 QUINTON JOEY WATTS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. No. 2:16-cv-0926 JAM AC P ORDER TAYMOUR E. MALAK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 On August 16, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order adopting the 17 18 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and dismissing the case without leave to 19 amend. ECF No. 17. Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what 20 new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown 21 upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts or 22 circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4). Plaintiff’s 23 only argument is that he should be given at least one chance to amend the complaint because he is 24 a pro se prisoner. ECF No. 17. This does not meet the requirements for a motion for 25 reconsideration or warrant a different outcome. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 1 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF 2 No. 17) is denied. 3 DATED: September 28, 2017 4 /s/ John A. Mendez_____________ _________ 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?