Lipsey v. Kalil, et al.

Filing 75

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 04/05/22 DENYING 69 Motion for Reconsideration. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR.,

12

No. 2:17-cv-01429-TLN-AC

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

M. KALIL, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for reconsideration of the

18

February 14, 2022 order denying his motion to compel and for sanctions. (ECF No. 69.) Local

19

Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or different facts or

20

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion,

21

or what other grounds exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not

22

shown at the time of the prior motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4). Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration

23

does not present any new or different facts or circumstances.

24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration,

25

(ECF No. 69), is DENIED.

26

DATED: April 5, 2022

27
28

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

1