Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380-21/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Docs. 72, 74)

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are two motions for reconsideration

from Plaintiff. (Docs. #72, 74.)

Plaintiff requests reconsideration by a district judge of the court order denying Plaintiff’s

request for leave to amend his complaint. On June 29, 2010, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for

an extension of time to file an amended complaint. (Doc. #61.) The deadline for amending the

pleadings was June 30, 2010. Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to amend on July 9, 2010. 

The Court’s August 23, 2010 order denied Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend and Plaintiff’s

request for reconsideration of the order denying the extension of time. (Doc. #70.)

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin

Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983)

(en banc). A motion for reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the

interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises v. Estate of Bishop,

229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly

1

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 94 Filed 01/14/11 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

27

28

convincing nature to introduce the Court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., 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, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local

Rule 230(j) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist

which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the

motion.” The Court reviews a motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge’s ruling under the “clearly

erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72(a).

The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend because it was untimely and

because the motion failed to set forth sufficient arguments why Plaintiff’s attempt to cure the

deficiencies identified in the February 11, 2009 screening order came after over a year. Although

Plaintiff claims that discovery was delayed because Defendants failed to cooperate with Plaintiff’s

discovery requests, Plaintiff did not identify any evidence or information obtained during the course

of discoverythat lead to the discoveryof the new or different claims presented in Plaintiff’s amended

complaint filed on July 9, 2010.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration are

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 14, 2011 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 94 Filed 01/14/11 Page 2 of 2