UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 18, 2012
JASON R. PEZANT,
F. GONZALEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 13)
Plaintiff Jason R. Pezant is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 9, 2012, Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order was denied because Plaintiff's complaint was being dismissed for failure to state a claim. On January 17, 2012, Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the motion for a temporary restraining order on January 18, 2012.
"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," and it "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." Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff argues that his complaint had not been dismissed, however the order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint issued on January 17, 2011. Until Plaintiff files an amended complaint and the Court is able to determine which claims are cognizable and appropriately raised in this action, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010).
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is devoid of any ground entitling him to relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, filed January 18, 2012, is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.