Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05645/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05645-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

JAMES KEEN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AMY NOBLE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04-5645 AWI WMW P

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

ORDER AMENDING SEPTEMBER 20,

2007 ORDER

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Document #72)

Plaintiff is a federal inmate and is proceeding in this action against United States Bureau

of Prisons (“BOP”) officials for conduct that occurred while Plaintiff was housed at the United

States Penitentiary at Atwater (“Atwater”). Plaintiff claims that Defendants prohibited him

from the free exercise of his religious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment, the Land Use

and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

(“RFRA”) by denying him personal possession of runestones.

On September 18, 2007, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion

for summary judgment. On October 1, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. 

Plaintiff contends that the complaint did not raise any issues regarding a “hof,” yet the court’s

order on Defendants’ motion and the related Findings and Recommendations discuss a “hof”. 

Plaintiff requests that the court’s orders concerning claims related to a “hof” be stricken. 

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

Case 1:04-cv-05645-AWI-WMW Document 73 Filed 01/30/08 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

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

“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 set forth facts or law th

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

In this action, the operative pleading is Plaintiff’s May 28, 2004 amended complaint. 

The court has carefully reviewed this document. Plaintiff is correct. The amended complaint

only contends that Defendants have violated his rights by denying him runestones. The

amended complaint does not contain allegations concerning the construction of a “hof”. It is

not entirely clear why allegations concerning a “hof” have been addressed by the parties and the

court. It appears the court ruled on claims concerning the “hof” because Defendants asked for

summary judgment on such claims. Apparently, it was overlooked that the “hof” claims were

not in the operative pleading. Because the amended complaint does not contain claims

concerning a “hof”, the parts of the court’s September 20, 2007 order concerning a “hof” will be

stricken.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED;

2. All rulings in the September 20, 2007 order concerning claims arising from

Defendants’ denial of a “hof” are STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05645-AWI-WMW Document 73 Filed 01/30/08 Page 2 of 2