UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 11, 2011
A.K. SCRIBNER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER D E N Y IN G M O T IO N F O R RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff Bobby Lee ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is a motion for reconsideration from Plaintiff. (Docs. #35.) Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the April 2, 2010 order dismissing certain claims from this action.
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). A motion for reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Kona Enterprises v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to introduce the Court to reverse its 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). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show 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."
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration fails to set forth any new or different facts or circumstances that did not exist at the time of the Court's April 2, 2010 screening order. Plaintiff requests reconsideration on the basis of facts and arguments that the Court had already considered at the time of the screening order.
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.