Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02611/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02611-17/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KENNETH ALAN SIERRA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CDCR DIRECTOR, et al., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:17-cv-2611 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On February 10, 2020, the court received plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the 

District Judge’s order, filed January 15, 2020, which denied plaintiff’s various motions for 

injunctive relief. ECF No. 74. Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state 

“what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not 

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts 

or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4). The 

motion fails to identify any new or different fact or circumstances and simply asks for 

reconsideration of the order with citation to the motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate 

///// 

Case 2:17-cv-02611-KJM-AC Document 83 Filed 03/06/20 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 

2 

Judge’s December 12, 2019 order, which does not provide any new or different facts or 

circumstances. ECF No. 74. 

The court has also received plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate 

Judge’s order, filed December 12, 2019. ECF No. 75. Local Rule 303(f) provides that a 

magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” The court 

has reviewed the motion for reconsideration and finds that the Magistrate Judge’s December 12, 

2019 order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The motion for reconsideration of the undersigned’s January 15, 2020 order, ECF 

No. 74, is denied. 

2. The motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s December 12, 2019 order, 

ECF No. 75, is granted and the December 12, 2019 order is affirmed. 

DATED: March 5, 2020. 

Case 2:17-cv-02611-KJM-AC Document 83 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 2