UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 22, 2011
ALLEN LEE RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.,
SILBERMAN, ET AL., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S LETTER TO THE COURT [Doc. No. 8]
Plaintiff Allen Lee Rodriguez, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this purported civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 13, 2011, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff's first amended complaint without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) and § 1915A(b). See Doc. No. 5. The Court also denied Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint, finding amendment would be futile. Id. The Clerk of Court entered judgment accordingly, and closed the case. See Doc. No. 6. Plaintiff now submits a letter motion to the Court, seeking reconsideration of the January 13 Order.
The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir.1992). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001); Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir.1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought. Walker v. Giurbino, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111382, 2008 WL 1767040, *2 (E.D.Cal. 2008); United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz.1998). "A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision . . ." United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).
Here, Plaintiff argues, inter alia, that he has evidence to prove his claims of libel and slander. However, as the Court noted in its prior order, Plaintiff's claims are directed towards private actors, do not involve any constitutional violations, and thus are not cognizable under section 1983. Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the Court finds no basis upon which to reconsider, alter, or amend its January 13 Order and DENIES Plaintiff's request to do so.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.