Mizukami v. Edwards et al

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 14 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by District JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on March 30, 2012. (bbb, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications, Attorney Thomas Collins and on Hawaii State Attorney General David Louie were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
DONNA EDWARDS; THOMAS D.
COLLINS III; The STATE OF
)
)
HAWAII and Gov. NEAL
ABERCROMBIE, Hon. BERT I.
)
AYABE judge of Circuit Court )
of First Circuit, Hon. DANIEL )
)
R. FOLEY judge Intermediate
Court of Appeals, DOES 1-10, )
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )
GLENN MIZUKAMI,

CIVIL NO. 12-00103 LEK-BMK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On February 21, 2012, pro se Plaintiff Glenn K.
Mizukami (“Plaintiff”) filed a Verified Complaint (“Complaint”),
an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Affidavit
(“Application”), and a Petition for Injunctive Relief and
Declaratory Judgment (“Petition”).

The Court dismissed the

Complaint with prejudice and denied the Application and Petition
as moot in a February 29, 2012 Order (“2/29/12 Order”).
was entered the same day.

Judgment

On March 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a

Motion to Amend Judgment (“Motion to Amend”), asking the Court to
amend the 2/29/12 Order and judgment of dismissal, and to accept
his proposed First Amended Complaint.

The Court denied the

Motion to Amend in a March 21, 2012 Order (“3/21/12 Order”).

On

March 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider 3/21/12
Order Denying Plaintiff’s 3/9/12 Motion to Amend Judgment
(“Motion”).

The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition

without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(d) of the Local Rules of
Practice of the United States District Court for the District of
Hawai`i (“Local Rules”).

After careful consideration of the

Motion and the relevant legal authority, this Court HEREBY DENIES
the Motion.
This district court recognizes three grounds for
granting reconsideration of an order: “(1) an intervening change
in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3)
the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”
White v. Sabatino, 424 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1274 (D. Hawai`i 2006)
(citing Mustafa v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 157 F.3d 1169,
1178–79 (9th Cir. 1998)).

“Mere disagreement with a previous

order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.”

Id.

“Whether or not to grant reconsideration[,]” however, “is
committed to the sound discretion of the court.”

Navajo Nation

v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331
F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enter., Inc. v.
Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000)).
Plaintiff’s Motion does not satisfy any of the three
grounds for granting reconsideration of an order.

It provides no

intervening change in controlling law, no new evidence previously

2

unavailable, and no need to correct clear or manifest error in
law or fact to prevent manifest injustice.

To the extent

Plaintiff’s Motion repeats allegations that the Court already had
before it when the Court denied the Motion To Amend, Plaintiff
does not show error by this Court.

To the extent Plaintiff’s

Motion sets forth new factual allegations, he does not indicate
why those could not have been presented earlier or why they
constitute newly discovered evidence.
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to
Reconsider 3/21/12 Order Denying Plaintiff’s 3/9/12 Motion to
Amend Judgment, filed March 29, 2012, is HEREBY DENIED.
Plaintiff is advised that judgment has been entered, this matter
is closed, and the Court will not entertain further motions for
reconsideration regarding the same issues raised in his previous
motions.
The Clerk of Court is directed to serve the present
Order on Attorney Thomas Collins and on Hawai‘i State Attorney
General David Louie, who in turn are asked to notify the
respective named Defendants whom they represent or have
represented that this Order has been entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
//

3

DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, March 30, 2012.

/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

GLENN MIZUKAMI V. DONNA C. EDWARDS, ET AL; CIVIL NO. 12-00103
LEK-BMK; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

4