IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 23, 2012
LONNIE WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
GOMEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 6, 2012, the undersigned revoked plaintiff's in forma pauperis status. Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of that order.
Reconsideration is appropriate if the court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state "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." E.D. Cal., Local Rule 230(j)(3)-(4).
Plaintiff's motion does not describe new or different facts or circumstances that would warrant reconsideration of the court's February 6, 2012 order.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's March 8, 2012 motion for reconsideration (Dckt. No. 50) is DENIED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.