Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00525/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00525-13/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE WASHINGTON, 

NO. CIV. S-05-525 LKK/KJM P

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

LEE ALEXANDER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration of the court’s March 6, 2008 order, in which the

court adopted in part and rejected in part the Findings and

Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge to the defendants’

motion to dismiss. The court denies plaintiff’s motion. 

“Under the ‘law of the case’ doctrine a court is generally

precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been

decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical

case.” United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir.

1997)(citing Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 153, 154 (9th Cir. 1993),

cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993)). Although motions to

Case 2:05-cv-00525-LKK -KJM Document 55 Filed 04/07/08 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

reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court,

see Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp.

656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on

other grounds, 824 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486

U.S. 1015 (1988), considerations of judicial economy weigh

heavily in the process. Thus, Local Rule 78-230(k) requires

that a party seeking reconsideration of a district court's order

must brief the “new or different facts or circumstances . . .

which . . . were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other

grounds exist for the motion.” Generally speaking, before

reconsideration may be granted there must be a change in the

controlling law or facts, the need to correct a clear error, or

the need to prevent manifest injustice. See Alexander, 106 F.3d

at 876.

In the case at bar, plaintiff fails to explain how there

was a change in the controlling law or facts, or a need to

correct a clear error. Upon review of the court’s March 6,

2008, that order appears supported by law and the facts before

the court. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration

(Doc. 52) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 7, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-00525-LKK -KJM Document 55 Filed 04/07/08 Page 2 of 2