UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 1, 2010
MARCELLUS BUTLER, PLAINTIFF,
CDCR, L.. WOLCOTT, B. WEBSTER, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert H. Whaley United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On July 2, 2010, the Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and remanded Plaintiff's state law claims to Lassen County Superior Court. On July 22, 2010, Defendant filed Objections to the Court's order (Ct. Rec. 38). The Court will construe these objections as a Motion for Reconsideration. "[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). It is considered an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Id. A motion under Rule 59(e) "may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation." Id. (emphasis in original).
In his objections, Plaintiff attempts to reargue his position, rather than present the Court with newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in controlling law. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Court should revisit its previous Order.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Ct. Rec. 38) is DENIED.
2. The District Court Executive is directed to close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, forward copies to Plaintiff and counsel.
s/Robert H. Whaley
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.