LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a California state prisoner incarcerated at the La Palma Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court are plaintiff's motions for reconsideration of two court orders as well as for a stay and abeyance of these proceedings. (ECF No. 16.)
I. Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's August 28, 2013 Order
On August 13, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the assigned Magistrate Judge's July 19, 2013 order requiring plaintiff to submit the required filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis, denying plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel, and directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 13 & 10.) In his July 19, 2013 order the assigned Magistrate Judge also advised plaintiff that the California defendants sued in their official capacity were immune from such suit under the Eleventh Amendment. On August 28, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's order. (ECF No. 13.)
Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the court's August 28, 2013, denying his motion for reconsideration. Therein, plaintiff again argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in several respects in his July 19, 2013 order.
II. Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge's September 5, 2013 Order
In an order filed September 5, 2013 (ECF No. 14), the assigned Magistrate Judge granted plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered plaintiff to file his amended complaint within thirty days. The Magistrate Judge also advised plaintiff that in light of the court's August 28, 2013 order denying reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's July 19, 2013 order, plaintiff should not name the Arizona defendants in any amended complaint he elected to file in this action.
Plaintiff moves this court to reconsider the Magistrate Judge's most recent order as well, repeating all of the arguments noted above. Plaintiff also argues that requiring plaintiff to separate his claims into two lawsuits - one in California against California defendants and the other in Arizona against Arizona defendants, would needlessly waste judicial resources and that the claims against the Arizona defendants are "entwined and cannot be adequately separated" from the claims involving the California defendants. (ECF No. 16 at 21.)
III. Motion for Stay and Abeyance
In his motion for a stay and abeyance, plaintiff seeks to stay the assigned Magistrate Judge's September 5, 2013 order (ECF No. 15) which directed the Warden of La Palma Correctional Center to collect from plaintiff's inmate trust account funds for payment of the filing fee and to forward those payments to the Clerk of the Court. Plaintiff contends that the order should be stayed until the issues relating to plaintiff's state-citizenship status, the defendant's Eleventh Amendment immunity and the proper venue for this action have been resolved by the court.
I. Motion for Reconsideration of August 28, 2013 Order
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). Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt , 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir.1983) (en banc). In seeking reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show the "new or different facts or circumstances... claimed ...