Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00851/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00851-23/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HOWARD SCOTT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. McDONALD, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:09-cv-0851-MCE-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On March 21, 2014, the court denied plaintiff’s request for appointment of 

counsel. ECF No. 137. The court also construed plaintiff’s motion, entitled “Motion for 

Summary Judgment and Motion for Request for Appointment of Counsel as well as Opposing 

Attorney General Motion to Dismiss,” as a motion to compel, and denied that motion as well. 

See id. (explaining that given the July 29, 2013 deadline for filing motions to compel, plaintiff’s 

February 7, 2014 motion was not timely filed). Plaintiff has filed “objections” to the March 21, 

2014 order, which the court construes as a motion for reconsideration. See ECF No. 132 at 2, 3 

(objecting to portion of order denying counsel and requesting that the court “revisit” its ruling on 

the “summary judgment” motion). 

Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or different 

facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior 

Case 2:09-cv-00851-MCE-EFB Document 142 Filed 05/13/14 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

motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” 

E.D. Cal., Local Rule 230(j)(3)-(4). 

Plaintiff’s motion must be denied because it does not describe new or different facts that 

plaintiff could not have shown with his prior motion. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s “objections,” construed as a 

motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 141) is denied. 

DATED: May 12, 2014. 

Case 2:09-cv-00851-MCE-EFB Document 142 Filed 05/13/14 Page 2 of 2