Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06925/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06925-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH RAYMOND MCCOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 6925 REC LJO P 

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION FOR

COMPLIANCE WITH CIRCUIT COURT OF

APPEALS RULE (Doc. 36.) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 37)

 Joseph Raymond McCoy (“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. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 24, 2003. Following numerous attempts by

the Court to resolve the fee issue and appeals by Plaintiff, the appeal issue was resolved on

August 11, 2004. 

On April 19, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Pleading titled “Motion Order Directing Procedural

Compliance with Circuit Rule 27-7.” On April 26, 2005, Plaintiff moved this Court for

reconsideration of its prior Order denying his Motion for Substitution of Copies. 

A. MOTION FOR PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE

In this pleading, Plaintiff requests an Order directing procedural compliance with Circuit Rule

27-7. Plaintiff’s request, however, is wholly unclear. The Circuit Rules apply to the United

States Court of Appeal of the Ninth Circuit. Cases and pleadings filed in the U.S. District Court

for the Eastern District of California, however, are governed by the Local Rules established

Case 1:03-cv-06925-MHM Document 40 Filed 11/21/05 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

27

28

2

specifically for cases filed in this Court. Thus, Rule 27-7 is inapplicable. Accordingly, the

Motion for Order Directing Procedural Compliance is DISREGARDED.

B. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

On April 26, 2005, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of this Court’s prior Order

denying his Request for Substitution of documents. In that Order, the Court informed Plaintiff

that it would not and could not remove documents and replace documents at the Plaintiff’s

request. In addition, because court files are now maintained in electronic form, it is literally

impossible to remove or add documents to a particular pleading. Plaintiff was further informed

that if he wished to now include the missing documents, he would be required to submit an

Amended Complaint. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has sought reconsideration of the Court’s prior

order stating that he discovered certain exhibits missing from his initial Complaint and wishes to

submit them. 

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 for Substitution of Copies

is not based on any new facts or law not in existence at the time the Court denied the Motion. 

Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06925-MHM Document 40 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 2