Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01617/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01617-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANCE R. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. COPE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01617-DLB PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(ECF NO. 16)

Plaintiff Lance R. Martin (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff filed notice of intent to

withdraw this action on January 4, 2010. Accordingly, the Court ordered the closure of this

action pursuant to Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal. Pending before the Court is

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed July 1, 2010. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff contends that

he was under physical duress at the time he filed his notice, and is still under duress. Plaintiff

requests reinstatement of this action.

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). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing

nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See 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 (9th Cir. 1987). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule

230(j) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist

which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for

1

Case 1:09-cv-01617-DLB Document 17 Filed 07/14/10 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

the motion.”

Plaintiff appears to contend that he is currently being food poisoned at High Desert State

Prison in Susanville, California. (Pl.’s Mot. 1.) However, this action concerned events occurring

at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California. (Pl.’s Compl. 5, ECF No. 1.) Events at High

Desert State Prison arise from completely different events than the ones originally raised in this

action. Plaintiff fails to present sufficient grounds to re-open this action.1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed

July 1, 2010, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 13, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed several motions to withdraw the action, and filed other documents

1

indicating that he did not intend to withdraw. (ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.) Plaintiff’s last filing, on January 4,

2010, indicated that he intended to dismiss his action. Plaintiff claims in some filings that he is under physical

duress; in other filings, Plaintiff indicates that there is no duress. The Court lacks sufficient information to decide

which of Plaintiff’s contentions is true. Plaintiff is reminded that representations to the Court require factual support.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3).

2

Case 1:09-cv-01617-DLB Document 17 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 2