Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Todd v. Hedgpeth

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

December 16, 2013

MICHAEL ANDRE TODD, Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY L. HEDGPETH, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S AUGUST 26, 2013, ORDER, DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF Nos. 99, 100]

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Michael Andre Todd is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States magistrate judge.

On August 26, 2013, the undersigned granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Specifically, summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendants Dill and Kelgord and denied as to Defendants Lopez and Hedgpeth. (ECF No. 96.) In denying summary judgment as to Defendants Lopez and Hedgpeth, the undersigned found that assuming Defendants Lopez and Hedgpeth received Plaintiff's letter requesting medical assistance, a material issue of facts exists as to whether they were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs.

Now pending before the Court is a motion for reconsideration filed by Defendants Lopez and Hedgpeth. Plaintiff filed an opposition on Defendants' motion on October 30, 2013, and Defendants filed a reply on November 7, 2013.

I.

DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Standard

The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii , 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc. , 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir. 1992). "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 Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co. , 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). In addition, "[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and "recapitulation... of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision."" U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist. , 134 S.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).

Defendants seek reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 230(j) which provides:

Whenever any motion has been granted or denied in whole or in part, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration is made upon the same or any alleged different set of facts, counsel shall present to the Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom such subsequent motion is made an affidavit or brief, as appropriate, setting forth the material facts and circumstances surrounding each motion for which reconsideration is sought, including:
(1) when and to what Judge or Magistrate Judge the prior motion was made;
(2) what ruling, decision, or order was made thereon;
(3) 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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