The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Christina A. Snyder, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable Christina A. Snyder, United States District Judge
Catherine M. Jeang Not Present N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS): REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF No. 46.)
On June 23, 2010, Dominic Lucero ("Plaintiff") filed a pro se Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Complaint"). (ECF No. 3.) On June 10, 2011, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 30.) On July 14, 2011, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), along with numerous supporting exhibits. (ECF No. 33.) On July 26, 2011, the Court ordered service of the FAC. (ECF No. 35.) On July 29, 2011, Brenda M. Cash (Warden of California State Prison, Los Angeles County ("CSPLAC")), T. Belavich (Health Care Manager), Paullette Finander (Chief Medical Officer), Junard Fitter (Primary Care Provider), and J. Thomas (Licensed Vocational Nurse) (collectively "Defendants") filed an Answer to the FAC. (ECF No. 37.) On August 25, 2011, the Court issued its Order Re: Discovery and Motions. (ECF No. 40.)
On August 22, 2011, plaintiff filed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order, along with a supporting declaration and exhibits. (ECF Nos. 39, 43.) On November 8, 2011, the Court denied plaintiff's Motion. (ECF No. 44.)
On November 28, 2011, plaintiff filed a pleading entitled "Relief from Judgment or Order Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)." (ECF No. 46.) Although plaintiff cites to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in support of his request, the specific relief he seeks in reconsideration of the Court's November 8, 2011, Order denying his Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Id. at 4.) Thus, the Court construes plaintiff's filing as a Motion for Reconsideration under Local Rule 7-18 rather than a request under Rule 60(b).
The Local Rules of this Court provide in pertinent part that:
A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made only on the grounds of (a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such decision. No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion.
In the Order denying plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, the Court noted as to the likelihood of success on the merits ...