UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 16, 2008
JOHN E. JAMES III, PLAINTIFF,
BEER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 252)
Plaintiff John E. James III ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. This action is proceeding on plaintiff's amended complaint, filed January 4, 2005 against the following defendants: Sgt. Beer, Sgt. J. Martinez, Sgt. R. Vogel, Correctional Officer Torres, Correctional Officer H. German, Correctional Officer D. Valtierra, Correctional Officer E. Trotter, MTA F. Lemos, MTA. G. Maldonaldo, R.N. N. Edmond, Dr. J., R. Broomfield, Captain. D. Means, Lt. Rabe, S. Rocha, D. Stockman, and V. Yamamoto. Plaintiff names all defendants in both their individual and official capacities (Doc. 24, Amended Complaint). Now pending is Plaintiff's document entitled "'Objection! to Magistrate Judge's Order re Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Complaint (Doc. 166)", filed September 11, 2008.
II. Motion for Reconsideration
A telephonic trial confirmation hearing was held in this matter on August 8, 2008. During the hearing, Plaintiff agreed to withdraw his pending motion to supplement his complaint. On August 11, 2008, the Court issued an order reflecting Plaintiff's withdrawal of his motion. (Doc. 242).
On September 11, 2008, Plaintiff filed an objection to the Court's August 11, 2008 order. (Doc. 252). Plaintiff contends that he was coerced to withdraw his motion by threats of excessive delay and of granting defendants dispositive motion. Plaintiff states that he does not want to withdraw his motion to supplement his complaint. The Court construes Plaintiff's objection as a motion for reconsideration of the Court's August 11, 2008 order.
To succeed on a motion for reconsideration, a party generally must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60 (governing motions for reconsideration of final orders and judgments); Local Rule 78-230(k) (governing motions for reconsideration of orders resolving motions).
The record in this action speaks for itself. There is no basis for reversal of the Court's prior decision. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.