UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 10, 2012
CURLEY JOHN BROUSSARD, JR.,
RECONSIDERATION LISA A. MUNOZ, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR (ECF No. 19)
Plaintiff Curley John Broussard, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 27, 2012, an order issued denying Plaintiff's motion for a court order and granting him an extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 18.) On September 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying his motion for a court order. (ECF No. 19.)
"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).
In this instance, Plaintiff's complaint had been dismissed with leave to amend and the Court did not have before it an actual case or controversy conferring jurisdiction to order the relief Plaintiff requested. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). Plaintiff does set forth any grounds for reconsideration of the order denying his motion for a court order. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, filed September 6, 2012, is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.