Epps v. Grannis et al

Filing 133

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

OMAR ERNEST EPPS,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

Case No. 10cv1949 BEN (KSC)

vs.

ORDER:
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

N. GRANNIS, et al.,
Defendants.

[Dkt. No. 121]

15
16

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s June 27, 2013 Order,

17

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Defendants have not filed a

18

response. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for

19

motions for reconsideration. However, where a ruling has resulted in a final

20

judgment or order, a request for reconsideration may be considered a motion to alter

21

or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), or a motion

22

for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). School

23

Dist. No. 1J Mulnomah Co. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993).

24

Because the Court’s June 27, 2013 Order was not a final judgment or order,

25

however, the Court shall consider Plaintiff’s Motion solely pursuant to Local Rule

26

7.1(i)(1), which provides that a party may apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any

27

motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief has been made to

28

any judge and has been refused in whole or in part . . . .” S.D. CAL. CIV. L.R. 7.1(i).

1

Local Rule 7.1(i)(2), like Rule 59, permits motions for reconsideration within

2

“twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of the ruling, order or judgment sought to be

3

reconsidered.” Id. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion is timely. However, Plaintiff must

4

show “what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did

5

not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.” Id.

6

Reconsideration of a court’s prior determination “must be based ‘upon

7

manifest error of law, or mistake of fact, and is not intended to give an unhappy

8

litigant an additional chance to sway the court.’” Paalan v. United States, 58 Fed.

9

Cl. 99, 105 (2003) (quoting Bishop v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 281, 286 (1992)); see

10

also United States v. Navarro, 972 F. Supp. 1296, 1299 (E.D. Cal. 1997)

11

(“[M]otions to reconsider are not vehicles permitting the unsuccessful party to

12

‘rehash’ arguments previously presented.”). In sum, Plaintiff’s arguments are legal

13

disagreements with this Court’s decision now relying on “new” or “different” facts

14

or circumstances. However, the facts Plaintiff now points to, if they are as Plaintiff

15

describes them, were in existence at the time Plaintiff filed his response to this

16

Court’s Order to Show Cause. They were not presented then, and will not be

17

reconsidered now. See S.D. CAL. CIV. L.R. 7.1(i).

18
19
20
21

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 19, 2013

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge