UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 6, 2012
PEREZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOCS. 64, 65)
Plaintiff Rayshon Thomas ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, proceeding pro se. On October 12, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of this action for failure to obey a court order. Doc. 55. This action was dismissed on May 13, 2011, for Plaintiff's failure to obey a court order. Doc. 62. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration filed June 7 and June 8, 2011. Docs. 64, 65. The motions are construed as Plaintiff's motions to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse a 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). This Court's Local Rule 230(j) requires a party seeking reconsideration to demonstrate "what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion . . . and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion."
Plaintiff reiterates his arguments previously raised in his objections to the Findings and Recommendations. No new facts or circumstances exist for the Court to reconsider its judgment. See DeMasse v. I.T.T. Corp., 915 F. Supp. 1040, 1048 (D. Ariz. 1995) (motion properly denied when it merely attempted to relitigate previously considered matters). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions to amend the judgment, filed June 7, 2011 and June 8, 2011, are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.