Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carlos Rios v. Matthew Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 3, 2012

CARLOS RIOS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MATTHEW CATE, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 86]

Plaintiff Carlos Rios, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 59.] Judge Lewis issued a well-reasoned and thorough Report containing findings and conclusions, upon which he based his recommendation that the Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 70.] The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, over Plaintiff's objection. [Doc. No. 83.] As a result, the only remaining claims in this action are Plaintiff's Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims against Defendants for injunctive and declaratory relief, in their official capacities. Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the Court's Order adopting the Report and Recommendation and seeks reinstatement of his dismissed claims. [Doc. No. 86.] Defendants oppose the motion. [Doc. No. 94.]

"[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." Marlyn Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009), citing 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). A motion for reconsideration "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." Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).

Mindful of its duty to "construe pro se pleadings liberally," Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003), the Court has considered Plaintiff's motion and finds that Plaintiff fails to assert any cognizable basis to support reconsideration of the Court's prior ruling.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.

20121003

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.