ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. No. 98)
This is a civil rights lawsuits that stems from an encounter between Plaintiff Anthony Slama ("Slama") and two police officers of the Madera Police Department. *fn1 This Court previously granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and closed the case.
On September 12, 2011, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, and granted Plaintiff's Rule 60 motion to vacate and reopen. The summary judgment orders were vacated and this case was reinstated on the grounds that Plaintiff's attorney essentially had abandoned him. The Court gave Slama sixty days in which to file oppositions to the summary judgment motions.
Slama was granted an extension of time and given until January 13, 2012, in which to file oppositions. Slama was then granted until February 27, 2012, in which to file either an opposition or a Rule 56(d) motion.
On February 29, 2012, Slama filed a Rule 56(d) motion. On March 27, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for Rule 56(d) discovery, but gave Plaintiff an additional 30 days in which to file an opposition.
On April 11, 2012, Slama filed an objections and motion for reconsideration of the March 27, 2012, order.
Plaintiff's Arguments Slama states that Defendants are attempting to paint the encounter as consensual. However, there were other occasions when he invoked his Fourth Amendment rights. Slama seeks to obtain dispatch records of the other incidents, as well as photos from Google Earth which address the assertion that Plaintiff was walking in the shadows. Such evidence would "fortify" his claims. Further, Defendants have in their possession photos that show a choke hold was placed on him. With respect to Monell liability, the Torres case is still probative of the failure to train and excessive force. This is potentially critically important because it shows a pattern, and is part of the incidents that he is trying to uncover.
Slama also requests additional time, 30 extra days, to respond to the summary judgment motion because of the lack of sufficient law library access in the prison. Further, he has limited time because he is pursuing a federal habeas corpus case. Finally, Slama states that he did not receive a copy of Defendants' opposition to his Rule 56(d) motion.
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). Local Rule 230(j) provides:
Whenever any motion has been granted or denied in whole or in part, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration is made upon the same or any alleged different set of facts, counsel shall present to the Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom such subsequent motion is made an affidavit or brief, as appropriate, setting forth the material facts and circumstances surrounding each motion for which reconsideration is sought, including:
(1) when and to what Judge or Magistrate Judge the prior motion was made,
(2) what ruling, decision or order was made thereon,
(3) 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 ...