Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00764/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00764-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN TIMOTHY GREGORY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0764 FCD DAD P

vs.

D. RAMIREZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On October 16, 2006, this court affirmed the order of the magistrate judge filed

September 15, 2006, and denied plaintiff’s request for sanctions and an order requiring

immediate production of defendants’ trial exhibits. On November 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a

motion for reconsideration in which he asks that this court vacate its October 16, 2006 order and

impose sanctions on defendants.

A request for reconsideration is directed to the sound discretion of the court. See

Frito-Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981). A party

seeking reconsideration must brief the “new or different facts or circumstances” which were not

shown previously “or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 78-230(k). This rule

is grounded on the principle that decisions on legal issues made in a case should be followed

unless there is substantially different evidence or new controlling authority, or the party

Case 2:04-cv-00764-FCD-DAD Document 70 Filed 01/10/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

demonstrates that the court’s prior decision was clearly erroneous and resulted in injustice. See

Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Waggoner

v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985). A motion to reconsider is not a vehicle by which

an unsuccessful party can “rehash” arguments or present “contentions which might have been

raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F. Supp. 1003, 1009

(C.D. Cal. 1991); see F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986); Keyes v. National

R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991).

In this case, plaintiff’s motion rehashes allegations and arguments previously

presented. The motion does not present different facts or circumstances that were not shown

previously, and plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that this court’s order was clearly erroneous

and resulted in injustice. In particular, plaintiff is advised that he was not deprived of any right

to submit written opposition to defendants’ request for extension of time. See Local Rule 6-

144(c) (authorizing ex parte extensions of time) and Order filed June 22, 2004, at 3 (limiting the

motions that must be briefed by the parties in this action).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 6, 2006 motion for

reconsideration is denied. 

DATED: January 10, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-00764-FCD-DAD Document 70 Filed 01/10/07 Page 2 of 2