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)
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?