IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 26, 2009
ABNER H. LISTER, PLAINTIFF,
DIRECTOR OF CDC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, REQUEST FOR COPIES, AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(Docs. 13, 15.)
Plaintiff Abner H. Lister ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on June 4, 2007. (Doc. 1.) On June 13, 2007, plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. 7.) On November 26, 2008, this case was reassigned to the undersigned to conduct all further proceedings. (Doc. 9.)
On December 1, 2008, the court dismissed the complaint based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim, with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 10.) The thirty day period expired, and plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or respond otherwise to the court's order. On January 23, 2009, the undersigned dismissed this action with prejudice, based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim. (Doc. 11.)
On March 2, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order dismissing the case, and a request for copies of documents from his case file. (Doc. 13.) On March 23, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, request for copies, and motion for extension of time are now before the court.
II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). The Local Rules provide that when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party show that the "new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion." Local Rule 78-230(k)(3).
Plaintiff requests the court to reconsider the order dismissing his case, reopen the case, and grant him an extension of time in which to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff requests an extension of time until his release date of April 15, 2009, so that he can conduct research in order to amend the complaint.
Plaintiff fails to show any new or different facts or circumstances which did not exist at the time the court issued the order dismissing this action, or any other grounds for the court to reconsider its order. Plaintiff does not explain why he failed to comply with the court's order to amend his complaint, or why he failed to file a timely motion for extension of time. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration shall be denied.
III. REQUEST FOR COPIES
Plaintiff requests copies of documents from his case file. The Clerk's Office does not provide free copies of documents to parties. Copies up to 20 pages may be made by the Clerk's Office at a charge of $.50 per page. For larger copy orders, parties may contact Attorney's Diversified Service (ADS) by writing to them at 741 N. Fulton Street, Fresno, CA 93728, by phoning 1-800/842-2695, by Faxing a request to 559/486-4119, or by leaving a voice mail at 559/259-8544. Plaintiff is advised that in forma pauperis status does not include the cost of copies. Because plaintiff has not submitted any payment for copies, the request for copies shall be denied.
IV. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Plaintiff requests an extension of time in which to file an amended complaint. In light of the court's ruling on plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, the motion for extension of time is moot and shall be denied as such.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, filed March 2, 2009, is DENIED;
2. Plaintiff's request for copies is DENIED; and
3. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time, filed March 23, 2009, is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.