Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-mc-00095/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-mc-00095-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF MANUEL A. GONZALEZ,

JR., et al.,

2:06-MC-0095-MCE-GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Through the present action, the Estate of Correctional

Officer Miguel Gonzalez, together with Officer Gonzalez’ minor

children (“Plaintiffs”), allege that Roderick Q. Hickman, Jeanne

S. Woodford, Suzanne Hubbard, John Dovey, Lori Di Carlo, Carol

Roddy, Gregory Mellott and Wendy Still (“Defendants”) deprived

Officer Gonzalez of his civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Neither the State of California nor the California 1

Institution for Men (“CIM”) are parties to the present action.

Case 2:06-mc-00095-MCE -GGH Document 28 Filed 04/30/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration

of this Court’s December 20, 2006 Order (“Order”) reversing

Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows’ earlier Order compelling the

State of California (“State”) to produce documents pursuant to a

federal subpoena. See Order, Docket No. 17, November 6, 2006. 

Plaintiffs seek a reversal of this Court’s Order on the ground

that additional facts have come to light that would warrant

relief from that judgment. For the reasons set forth below,

Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED. 

BACKGROUND

The Court has already set forth a detailed factual

background for this action in its Order dated December 20, 2006,

which is incorporated by reference and need not be reproduced

herein. Mem. & Order 2-3, December 20, 2006. 

STANDARD

A court should be loathe to revisit its own decisions unless

extraordinary circumstances show that its prior decision was

wrong. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S.

800, 816, 108 S. Ct. 2166, 100 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1988). This

principle is generally embodied in the law of the case doctrine. 

That doctrine counsels against reopening questions once resolved

in ongoing litigation. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v.

Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing 18 C. Wright, A.

Miller & E. Cooper, Fed. Prac. and Proc. § 4478 at 788-89). 

Case 2:06-mc-00095-MCE -GGH Document 28 Filed 04/30/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Nonetheless, a court order resolving fewer than all of the claims

among all of the parties is “subject to revision at any time

before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the

rights and liabilities of all the parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b).

Where reconsideration of a non-final order is sought, the

court has “inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter or revoke it.” 

U.S. v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 2000). The

grounds justifying reconsideration involve an intervening change

of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need

to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Pyramid,

882 F.2d at 369. Mere discontent with the Court’s earlier ruling

is insufficient to warrant relief. 

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(k), an application for

reconsideration must set forth, by affidavit or brief, any new

material facts and circumstances that support a claim that the

Court’s previous ruling be revisited. Here Plaintiffs failed to

offer any such new evidence bearing on the Court’s prior ruling;

rather, Plaintiffs simply request that the Court revisit its

previous Order based almost solely on their disagreement with the

Court’s conclusion regarding Plaintiffs’ waiver argument. The

instant request is consequently deficient on that ground alone. 

In addition, however, Plaintiffs’ request offers nothing

substantively in any event to change the analysis set forth in

this Court’s Order.

Case 2:06-mc-00095-MCE -GGH Document 28 Filed 04/30/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-mc-00095-MCE -GGH Document 28 Filed 04/30/07 Page 4 of 4