Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05445/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05445-10/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 Defendant Hindt was dismissed from the action on May 12, 2006, for failure to exhaust administrative 1

remedies. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY BREW,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHNSON, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F04-5445 OWW NEW (DLB) P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING

MOTION TO COMPEL (Doc. 41.) 

 Jerry Brew (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s

original complaint against Defendants Johnson, Campbell, Reynold and Eckard.1

On July 27, 2006, this Court issued an Order opening discovery. On December 29, 2006,

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel requests for interrogatories number 102 and requests for

production of documents. Plaintiff states that he served these request on or around September

17, 2006. Plaintiff alleges that the discovery responses were “inadequate” and he references the

documents as Exhibits A and B. However, none of the attachments were attached to the Motion

filed with the Court. In addition, Plaintiff did not attach a proof of service that the Motion was

served on the Defendants. As such, the Court denied the Motion to Compel.

On February 5, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order

Case 1:04-cv-05445-LJO -GSA Document 43 Filed 02/22/07 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

denying the Motion to Compel. Plaintiff states that he inadvertently omitted the attachments

from the original Motion to Compel and he now attaches them. Plaintiff also states that the log

out mail sheet shows he sent the Motion to the Defendants. 

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 (9th

Cir. 1983) (en banc). The Local Rules provide that when filing a motion for reconsideration, a

party show that the “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 78-230(k)(3). 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider the Order denying the Motion to Dismiss is not based on

any new facts or law not in existence at the time the Motion to Compel was submitted. In

addition, Plaintiff’s justification that the mail log shows he sent the Motion to the Defendants

does not meet the requirements of the rules have attached a proof of service signed by the

mailing party and made under penalty of perjury. See Local Rule 5-135(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 5. 

Finally, according to the Court docket, the Plaintiff’s discovery deadline does not expire until

March 22, 2007, thus, Plaintiff has sufficient time to re-file his Motion to Compel curing all

deficiencies outlined by the Court in its prior Order denying his Motion. With respect to the

request for reconsideration, however, Plaintiff does not provide grounds on which to reconsider

and grant the prior Motion to Compel. 

Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05445-LJO -GSA Document 43 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 2