Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-05731/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-05731-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO MORENO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

JAMES GOMEZ, ET AL., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 98-5731 AWI LJO P

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Document #25)

BACKGROUND

On June 24, 1998, when Plaintiff was an inmate in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections, Plaintiff filed this action against prison officials. The Magistrate

Judge found the complaint stated a claim, and on April 16, 1999, the Magistrate Judge ordered

Plaintiff to submit USM-285 forms and completed summons for each defendant so that the

United States Marshals could serve the defendants. Plaintiff never complied with the Magistrate

Judge’s April 16, 1999 order and never contacted the court for additional time in which to

comply. Because the summons information was necessary for the court to proceed with this

action, on August 13, 1999, the court dismissed this action for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with

the April 16, 1999 order. On August 13, 1999, the Clerk of the Court entered judgement.

On October 17, 2006, Plaintiff filed a request to re-open this action. On October 25,

2006, the court denied Plaintiff’s request. After noting that Plaintiff had failed to contact the

court in any fashion for seven years, the court found that allowing Plaintiff to proceed after a

seven year absence in prosecuting this action would prejudice the defendants and allow no

Case 1:98-cv-05731-AWI -LJO Document 28 Filed 06/14/07 Page 1 of 3
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

finality to the judicial process. 

Plaintiff has now filed a motion for reconsideration of the October 25, 2006 order

denying Plaintiff’s motion to re-open this case.

LEGAL STANDARD

The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d

1185, 1198 (9 Cir.1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9 Cir.1992). th th

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to make

new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood

Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9 Cir.1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the th

court to rethink what it has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112,

1116 (D.Ariz.1998). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with

the Court's decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before

rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.” U.S. v. Westlands

Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Motions to reconsider are committed

to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir.

1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9 Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must

th

set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior

decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665

(E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9 Cir. 1987). th

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff has simply not provided additional facts or law that would compel this court to

reconsider its October 25, 2006 order declining to re-open this action. Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration provides only his disagreement with the court’s decision. Contrary to Plaintiff’s

assertions in his motion for reconsideration, this action was not dismissed because the court

found Plaintiff’s rights were not violated. Rather, this action was dismissed because of

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. Plaintiff also contends that this court was required to

Case 1:98-cv-05731-AWI -LJO Document 28 Filed 06/14/07 Page 2 of 3
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

appoint him an attorney, and by failing to appoint an attorney, it is the court’s fault, rather than

Plaintiff’s fault, that this action was not litigated. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assumption, the court

cannot compel an attorney to represent a plaintiff in a civil action. Mallard v. United States

District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional

circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). At the time Plaintiff

requested counsel, the court could not find that the court’s limited resources to appoint counsel

were necessary. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s

October 25, 2006 order denying Plaintiff’s motion to re-open this action is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:98-cv-05731-AWI -LJO Document 28 Filed 06/14/07 Page 3 of 3