The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION (Doc. 38)
ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENTS (Docs. 42, 44)
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED ONLY ON CLAIMS FOUND TO BE COGNIZABLE / RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS
In this inmate civil rights action, pro se plaintiff Robert Anthony Winters ("Plaintiff") seeks reconsideration of the District Judge's order overruling plaintiff's objections and denying Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration and expedited injunctive relief. For the reasons discussed below, this Court DENIES plaintiff reconsideration.
On April 3, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued an order striking supporting documents submitted by Plaintiff because the Court cannot serve as a repository for Plaintiff's evidence and these proceedings are not yet at the evidentiary stage. On April 6, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued an order requiring Plaintiff to either file a third amended complaint or notify the court of willingness to proceed only on claims found to be cognizable. Plaintiff filed objections to these orders and a motion for reconsideration. On June 23, 2009, the Court issued an order overruling Plaintiff's objections. Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, filed July 13, 2009, of this Court's June 23, 2009 order, and Plaintiff's supplemental pleadings, filed on September 30, 2009 and December 2, 2009 with this Court.
Motion For Reconsideration
Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). This Court's Local Rule 230(j) requires a party seeking reconsideration to demonstrate "what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion."
Plaintiff's lengthy motion presents no new facts or circumstances to justify reconsideration of the Court's June 23, 2009 order. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff filed supplemental pleadings on September 30, 2009 and December 2, 2009. Plaintiff has been warned previously that absolutely no piecemeal submissions will be accepted in this action. If Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff must file a complete third amended complaint pursuant to Local Rule 220. Plaintiff appears to misunderstand Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), which states that the Court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading. Plaintiff does not have a right under the Federal Rules to submit supplemental pleadings, and the Court does not grant ...