Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01548/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01548-2/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 

SHAWN HAWK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EDMUND BROWN, et al., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-1548-KJM-EFB PS 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a “Complaint for Declaratory 

Judgment.” 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 August 31, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations. 

Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. This court conducted a de novo

review of this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304. After careful review, the 

court adopted the findings and recommendations in full on October 14, 2015. Plaintiff 

subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration. 

District courts have wide discretion to consider and vacate a prior order. See 

Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 

1046 (9th Cir. 2003). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly 

unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 

Case 2:15-cv-01548-KJM-EFB Document 16 Filed 01/07/16 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

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn 

Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal 

quotation marks omitted & alteration in original). “A party seeking reconsideration must show 

more than a disagreement with the [c]ourt's decision, and recapitulation ... of that which was 

already considered by the [c]ourt in rendering its decision.” Le v. Sandor, No. 14–01464, 2014 

WL 5305894, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). A party filing a 

motion for reconsideration should not ask the court “to rethink what the Court has already thought 

through” simply because of a disagreement with the result of that thought process. Above the 

Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va.1983). In addition, in this 

district, a motion for reconsideration is governed by Local Rule 230(j), which requires a party to 

set forth, among other things, “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.” 

Local Rule 230(j)(3). 

Here, because plaintiff does not present this court with new evidence, does not 

show the court committed clear error, and does not indicate a change in controlling law, plaintiff 

has not met any of the grounds for reconsideration. In his motion, plaintiff merely repeats the 

argument from his objection to the findings and recommendations, that the magistrate judge’s 

characterization of his complaint as one brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is incorrect. As the 

court stated in its previous order, “[r]egardless of whether this action is characterized as a § 1983 

complaint or a ‘Complaint for Declaratory Judgment,’ dismissal is appropriate because plaintiff 

has commenced a civil action without paying the required filing fee or seeking leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis.” ECF 13 at 2:4-6. 

Because plaintiff merely repeats the same argument the court already considered in 

making its decision, the court DENIES plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 7, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01548-KJM-EFB Document 16 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 2