Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01418/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01418-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

HAROLD L. ARMSTRONG, No. 2:06-cv-1418-MCE-EFB-PS

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., 

Defendant. 

 /

By order dated December 18, 2006, plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal was denied. Plaintiff has filed a document opposing that order. To the extent plaintiff’s

opposition may be construed as a request for reconsideration of that order, it is denied. 

Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court,

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

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.” 

///

Case 2:06-cv-01418-MCE -EFB Document 34 Filed 03/08/07 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

The rule derives from the “law of the case” doctrine which provides that the decisions on legal

issues made in a case “should be followed unless there is substantially different evidence . . . new

controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would result in injustice.”

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), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1064 (1986).

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this court’s order denying his request to proceed on

appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has presented no new evidence or authority in support of his

motion. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s January 3, 2007, request for

reconsideration of this court’s December 18, 2006, order is denied.

Dated: March 8, 2007

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01418-MCE -EFB Document 34 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 2