UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 10, 2010
MICHAEL ANTHONY VICTORY, PLAINTIFF,
SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS (Doc. 95)
Plaintiff Michael Anthony Victory ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's objections to the Court's April 22, 2010 order, denying Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel and for certificate of appealability. The Court construes these objections as a 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 objections consist of Plaintiff's disagreement with the Court's rulings. However, Plaintiff raises no new arguments that merit reconsideration of the Court's April 22, 2010 order. Plaintiff's contention that he is not the author of his own legal filings does not demonstrate that Plaintiff thus requires the appointment of counsel in this action. Plaintiff's other arguments restate Plaintiff's arguments in his original motion. Plaintiff presents no new grounds for reconsideration.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's objections, filed May 7, 2010, are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.