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.

Marsh v. Vegianelli

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 17, 2010

LAWRENCE L. MARSH, PLAINTIFF,
v.
M. VEGIANELLI, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, WITH PREJUDICE (Doc. 28.)

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Lawrence L. Marsh is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on July 17, 2009. (Doc. 1.) On January 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 16.) On February 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend, which was granted on February 17, 2010. (Docs. 18, 20.) On April 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 25.)

On September 3, 2009, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff then filed three motions for reconsideration on October 2, 2009, November 5, 2009, and November 16, 2009, which were denied by the Court on November 30, 2009. (Docs. 8, 9, 10, 13.) Plaintiff also filed a renewed motion for appointment of counsel on November 23, 2009, which was denied in the November 30, 2009 order. (Docs. 12, 13.) On January 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a fourth motion for reconsideration of the Court's September 3, 2009 order, which as denied by the Court on February 19, 2010. (Docs. 17, 22.)

On July 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's November 30, 2009 order. (Doc. 28.) The July 2, 2010 motion is presently 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 requests reconsideration of the Court's order of November 30, 2009, which denied reconsideration of the Court's September 3, 2009 order denying appointment of counsel, and also denied Plaintiff's November 30, 2009 renewed motion for appointment of counsel. The basis for Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is his allegations against prison employees based on events occurring in late 2009 and 2010, after Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action. These allegations are not at issue in this action and cannot serve as a basis for reconsideration of the Court's orders denying appointment of counsel in this action. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion shall be denied, with prejudice.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, filed on July 2, 2010, is DENIED, with prejudice; and

2. The Court shall not entertain any further motions for reconsideration of the Court's orders of September 3, 2009, November 30, 2009, or February 19, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100917

© 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.