Hardin v. Baughman et al

Filing 52

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/25/2021 DENYING 49 Motion for Reconsideration. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
Case 2:17-cv-01340-MCE-AC Document 52 Filed 08/25/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEON HARDIN, 12 No. 2:17-cv-1340 MCE AC P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ORDER D. BOUGHMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for reconsideration of the 17 18 July 15, 2021, Order denying his requests to withdraw from the settlement agreement and re-open 19 the case. ECF No. 49. Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or different 20 21 facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior 22 motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts or circumstances were 23 not shown at the time of the prior motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4). Plaintiff’s motion for 24 reconsideration merely repeats the same arguments that were raised in his original motion to 25 withdraw from the settlement agreement and objections.1 26 1 27 28 To the extent plaintiff now attempts to claim that the parties agreed to a payment of $69,500.00 and that the signed settlement agreement has been altered to show that the agreement was for $9,500.00 and that he agreed to voluntarily dismissed two other cases, ECF No. 49 at 8, the (continued) 1 Case 2:17-cv-01340-MCE-AC Document 52 Filed 08/25/21 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 49, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: August 25, 2021 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 November 4, 2019 recording of the terms of the settlement conference clearly reflect that plaintiff agreed to settle the case for $9,500.00 and to dismiss his two other cases. 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?