Epps v. Grannis et al
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 121 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 8/19/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OMAR ERNEST EPPS,
Case No. 10cv1949 BEN (KSC)
N. GRANNIS, et al.,
[Dkt. No. 121]
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s June 27, 2013 Order,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Defendants have not filed a
response. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for
motions for reconsideration. However, where a ruling has resulted in a final
judgment or order, a request for reconsideration may be considered a motion to alter
or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), or a motion
for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). School
Dist. No. 1J Mulnomah Co. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993).
Because the Court’s June 27, 2013 Order was not a final judgment or order,
however, the Court shall consider Plaintiff’s Motion solely pursuant to Local Rule
7.1(i)(1), which provides that a party may apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any
motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief has been made to
any judge and has been refused in whole or in part . . . .” S.D. CAL. CIV. L.R. 7.1(i).
Local Rule 7.1(i)(2), like Rule 59, permits motions for reconsideration within
“twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of the ruling, order or judgment sought to be
reconsidered.” Id. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion is timely. However, Plaintiff must
show “what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did
not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.” Id.
Reconsideration of a court’s prior determination “must be based ‘upon
manifest error of law, or mistake of fact, and is not intended to give an unhappy
litigant an additional chance to sway the court.’” Paalan v. United States, 58 Fed.
Cl. 99, 105 (2003) (quoting Bishop v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 281, 286 (1992)); see
also United States v. Navarro, 972 F. Supp. 1296, 1299 (E.D. Cal. 1997)
(“[M]otions to reconsider are not vehicles permitting the unsuccessful party to
‘rehash’ arguments previously presented.”). In sum, Plaintiff’s arguments are legal
disagreements with this Court’s decision now relying on “new” or “different” facts
or circumstances. However, the facts Plaintiff now points to, if they are as Plaintiff
describes them, were in existence at the time Plaintiff filed his response to this
Court’s Order to Show Cause. They were not presented then, and will not be
reconsidered now. See S.D. CAL. CIV. L.R. 7.1(i).
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 19, 2013
Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge
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?