Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Martin v. Gonzales

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 23, 2009

LANCE R. MARTIN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
G. GONZALES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anthony W. Ishii Chief United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND REQUEST TO REOPEN CASE (Doc. 39.)

I. BACKGROUND

Lance R. Martin ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 29, 2007 and November 1, 2007, plaintiff filed motions to voluntarily dismiss his case. (Doc. 26.) On November 5, 2007, the court granted plaintiff's motions and dismissed this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(I), and the case was closed. (Doc. 28.)

On March 2, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen this case, and on April 9, 2009, the court denied the motion. (Docs. 33, 36.) On June 3, 2009, plaintiff filed a second motion to reopen this case, which the court treats as a motion for reconsideration of its April 9, 2009 order. (Doc. 39.) Plaintiff's second motion is 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 claims he was under physical duress because of food poisoning when he filed the motions to voluntarily dismiss his case. He wishes to submit two toxicology reports from the Delano Regional Medical Center as evidence of the food poisoning, but he has been unable to obtain copies of the reports from his file. He requests the court to obtain copies of the reports from his file, reopen the case, and allow him to file a supplemental complaint.

Plaintiff has not shown the court any new or different facts or circumstances which were not previously shown to the court. On March 2, 2009, in his first motion to reopen this case, plaintiff claimed that he was under duress from food poisoning when he voluntarily dismissed his case. (Doc. 35.) He also informed the court that he had medical records in his mental health file to prove he was poisoned. Id. Thus, the court was already advised of these grounds in plaintiff's first motion to reopen the case. Plaintiff has not added any new grounds in his second motion. Therefore, the court declines to reconsider its order of April 9, 2009 order, and plaintiff's second motion to reopen the case shall be denied. Plaintiff is reminded that given the ongoing nature of the injury plaintiff claims, he is able to file a new complaint including these claims. In light of the fact that plaintiff dismissed this case almost a year and a half ago, the better remedy is for plaintiff to file a new Section 1983 action, not to reopen the prior action.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's second motion to reopen this case is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090623

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.