Bridgeman v. Fox et al

Filing 9

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/29/2017 DENYING 8 Motion for Reconsideration. (Michel, G.)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

EDWARD BRIDGEMAN,

6

Plaintiff,

7
8

No. 2:16-cv-0928 JAM AC P

v.

ORDER

R. FOX, et al.,

9

Defendants.

10
On June 23, 2016, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the order adopting the

11
12

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and dismissing the case as duplicative of

13

Bridgeman v. Department of California Corrections, Case No. 2:15-cv-02579 JAM AC (ECF No.

14

6). ECF No. 4. Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or

15

different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon

16

such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts or

17

circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4). Plaintiff’s

18

only allegations are that he filed an amended complaint as directed1 and that he needs an attorney

19

to assist him. ECF No. 8. These allegations do not meet requirements for a motion for

20

reconsideration or warrant a different outcome.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF

21
22

No. 8) is denied.

23

DATED: March 29, 2017

24

/s/ John A. Mendez_______________________

25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

26
27
28

1

The court notes that an amended complaint was filed in Bridgeman v. Department of California
Corrections, Case No. 2:15-cv-02579 JAM AC, which still remains pending.
1