Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff's consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).
On May 4, 2010, the court dismissed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Dckt. No. 15. On May 24, plaintiff requested an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Before the court ruled on that request, plaintiff, on June 3, 2010, filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's May 4, 2010 order dismissing this action.
Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, Frito-Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981), considerations of judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party seeking reconsideration of a district court's order must brief the "new or different facts or circumstances . . . [which] were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion." The rule derives from the "law of the case" doctrine which provides that the decisions on legal issues made in a case "should be followed unless there is substantially different evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would result in injustice." Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1064 (1986).
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any new or different facts or circumstances which did not exist or were not shown when the court dismissed this action pursuant to § 1915A(b), and thus, his motion is denied. See L.R. 230(j). Nor has plaintiff identified any other ground that would justify relief from judgment. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration).
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the May 4, 2010 order, is affirmed.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw ...