Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00665/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00665-22/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

FREDERICK JONES, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTHONY COOPER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00665-LJO-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 78)

Plaintiff Frederick Jones, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 23, 2010, Plaintiff

filed a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. #78.) Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the order

denying Plaintiff’s previous motion for reconsideration.

Although Plaintiff’s motion is styled as a motion seeking reconsideration of the denial of a

motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff is essentially seeking reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal

of his due process claims for failing to state a claim, which occurred on March 26, 2009. (Doc. #50.)

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s February 23, 2010 motion for reconsideration for the same

reasons the Court denied Plaintiff’s April 10, 2009 motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff has failed

to set forth any new or different facts that did not exist at the time Plaintiff’s due process claims were

dismissed. Plaintiff’s due process claims were dismissed after the Court partially granted

Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

Plaintiff is herebywarned that filing a duplicative motion after the first motion is denied may

result in sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. See Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v.

1

Case 1:06-cv-00665-LJO -SKO Document 105 Filed 08/10/10 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

Pacific Gas and Elec. Co., 9831 F.2d 429, 439 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming $10,042 sanction against

party for filing duplicate motion to compel after first motion to compel was denied). If Plaintiff

continues to file motions on issues that have previously been raised by Plaintiff and denied by the

Court, he will be sanctioned under Rule 11, either by the imposition of monetary sanctions or

dismissal of this action. Plaintiff cannot seek reconsideration of an order denying reconsideration

to get two attempts at obtaining reconsideration of the order dismissing his due process claims.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s February 23, 2010 motion for

reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:06-cv-00665-LJO -SKO Document 105 Filed 08/10/10 Page 2 of 2