Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_97-cv-02117/USCOURTS-caed-2_97-cv-02117-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Alfred L. Brooks,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-97-2117 LKK PAN P

vs.

James Busi, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed a request for reconsideration of this court's June 1, 2005, order

dismissing the action based on qualified immunity and judgment.

Standards For Motions To Reconsider

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.” 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

Case 2:97-cv-02117-LKK -PAN Document 126 Filed 08/18/05 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

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).

Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the

alteration or amendment of a judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle

permitting the unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present 

“contentions which might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United

States, 765 F.Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D.Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268

(7th Cir. 1986); Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991). 

These holdings “reflect[] district courts' concerns for preserving dwindling resources and

promoting judicial efficiency.” Costello, 765 F.Supp. at 1009.

Here, plaintiff merely seeks to rehash arguments already presented and he fails to

meet the requirements for reconsideration under Local Rule 78-230(k) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, this court's

order and judgment of June 1, 2005, are affirmed.

DATED: August 17, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:97-cv-02117-LKK -PAN Document 126 Filed 08/18/05 Page 2 of 2