August 19, 2013
OMAR ERNEST EPPS, Plaintiff,
N. GRANNIS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER: DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. No. 121]
ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court's June 27, 2013 Order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Defendants have not filed a response. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for reconsideration. However, where a ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order, a request for reconsideration may be considered a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), or a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). School Dist. No. 1J Mulnomah Co. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993).
Because the Court's June 27, 2013 Order was not a final judgment or order, however, the Court shall consider Plaintiff's Motion solely pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(i)(1), which provides that a party may apply for reconsideration "[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part...." S.D. CAL. CIV. L.R. 7.1(i). Local Rule 7.1(i)(2), like Rule 59, permits motions for reconsideration within "twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of the ruling, order or judgment sought to be reconsidered." Id. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion is timely. However, Plaintiff must show "what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application." Id.
Reconsideration of a court's prior determination "must be based upon manifest error of law, or mistake of fact, and is not intended to give an unhappy litigant an additional chance to sway the court.'" Paalan v. United States, 58 Fed.Cl. 99, 105 (2003) (quoting Bishop v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 281, 286 (1992)); see also United States v. Navarro, 972 F.Supp. 1296, 1299 (E.D. Cal. 1997) ("[M]otions to reconsider are not vehicles permitting the unsuccessful party to rehash' arguments previously presented."). In sum, Plaintiff's arguments are legal disagreements with this Court's decision now relying on "new" or "different" facts or circumstances. However, the facts Plaintiff now points to, if they are as Plaintiff describes them, were in existence at the time Plaintiff filed his response to this Court's Order to Show Cause. They were not presented then, and will not be reconsidered now. See S.D. CAL. CIV. L.R. 7.1(i).
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.