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.

Miller v. Rufion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 14, 2010

GERALD L. MILLER, JR. CDCR #C-92075 PLAINTIFF,
v.
O. RUFION; MOONGA, R.N., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. William McCurine, Jr. U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

ORDER DENYING: (1) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL COSTS AND FEES; AND (2) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. Nos. 69 and 70]

I. INTRODUCTION

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motions: (1) for additional court fees and costs and (2) for reconsideration of this Court's May 21, 2010 order [Doc. No. 63.] After consideration of Plaintiff's motions and exhibits thereto, the motions are DENIED.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Generally, under the "law of the case" doctrine, a court is precluded from reconsidering an issue which has already been decided by the same court. United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997). However, motions for reconsideration may, under the discretion of the court, be heard in circumstances where there has been a change in the controlling law or facts. Id., Midgard Tempering, Inc. v. Seals Corp. of America, 902 F.3d 703, 715 (9th Cir. 1990). In the absence of such a circumstance, a court lacks discretion to stray from the "law of the case" doctrine. Alexander, 106 F.3d at 876 (citing Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 155 (9th Cir.1993)). Motions for reconsideration are not to be used to simply "rehash" arguments and facts previously considered by the court in making its ruling. See Costello v. U.S. Government, 765 F. Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991); Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989).

Correspondingly, in the absence of such "new or different facts," the "law of the case" doctrine will preclude reconsideration of a court's decision. Alexander, 106 F.3d at 876 (citing Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 155 (9th Cir. 1993)); see also School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc. 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) ("Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.")

Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its ruling requiring him to (1) retain a court reporter or other person sanctioned to take depositions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(a); and (2) conduct the deposition in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31. Plaintiff does not base his request for reconsideration on new facts or new law as is required, but instead argues his in forma pauperis status entitles him to a court reporter free of charge. [Doc. No. 70 at 2:1-10.] The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for a court-appointed deposition reporter to take depositions. See 28.USC. § 1915; Wright v. United States, 948 F.Supp. 61, 61-62 (M.D. Fla. 1996)(parties proceeding in forma pauperis are responsible for payment of discovery costs, including the costs of depositions, fees for court reporters and transcripts); Papas v. Hanlon, 849 F.2d 702 703-04 (1st Cir. 1988)( affirming an order requiring litigants proceeding in forma pauperis to pay stenographer's fees); Barcelo v. Brown, 655 F.2d 458, 462 (1st Cir. 1981)(in forma pauperis statute does not authorize a district court to order payment of transcripts). Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. In addition, as the fees and costs covered by the in forma pauperis statute do not include court reporter fees or costs, Plaintiff's motion for additional fees and costs is also DENIED.

III. CONCLUSION

AND ORDER THEREON For the foregoing reasons,Plaintiff's Motion for Additional Fees is DENIED and Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100614

© 1992-2010 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.