IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 6, 2009
REISH CARL ELLIS, PETITIONER,
DAVID RUNNELS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 12, 2009, petitioner filed a motion for stay and abeyance, which the court construes as a request for reconsideration of its March 28, 2008 order denying petitioner's November 28, 2007 motion for stay and abeyance.
This case was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. On February 15, 2008, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which recommended that respondents' July 14, 2006 motion to dismiss be granted because petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies as to all of his claims, and that petitioner's November 28, 2007 motion to stay the proceedings and hold his petition in abeyance while he exhausts his state remedies be denied because petitioner had not shown good cause for his failure to exhaust. The magistrate judge also recommended that petitioner be granted thirty days in which to file an amended petition containing only his first, exhausted claim.*fn1 Petitioner did not file objections to the findings and recommendations. After reviewing the entire file, the undersigned issued an order, filed March 28, 2008, adopting the findings and recommendations in full. On January 12, 2009, petitioner filed a second request for stay and abeyance, which the court construes as a request for reconsideration of its March 28, 2008 order.
Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, Frito-Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981), considerations of judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus Local Rule 78-230(k) requires that a party seeking reconsideration of a district court's order must brief the "new or different facts or circumstances... [which] were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion."
The rule derives from the "law of the case" doctrine which provides that the decisions on legal issues made in a case "should be followed unless there is substantially different evidence... new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would result in injustice." Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1064 (1986).
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any new or different facts or circumstances which did not exist or were not shown upon the prior motion. See E.D. Local Rule 78-230(k). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's request for reconsideration is hereby DENIED