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)

Download PDF
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

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?