Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01193/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01193-8/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

JEFFREY E. WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOHADJER, Clinical Psychologist, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1193 WBS AC P

ORDER

Plaintiff in this prisoner civil rights action has filed a request for reconsideration of the 

district court’s September 13, 2013 order denying immediate injunctive relief (ECF No. 32). 

Plaintiff contends that the court failed to consider that defendant Mohadjer had not responded to 

the request for a temporary restraining order, as directed by the magistrate judge. ECF No. 36.

Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, Frito-Lay 

of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981), considerations of 

judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party 

seeking reconsideration of a district court's order must brief the “new or different facts or 

circumstances [which] were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for 

the motion.” Id. The rule derives from the “law of the case” doctrine which provides that the 

decisions on legal issues made in a case “should be followed unless there is substantially different 

evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would 

Case 2:13-cv-01193-WBS-AC Document 41 Filed 10/10/13 Page 1 of 3
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

result in injustice.” Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); 

see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1064 

(1986).

Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the alteration or 

amendment of a judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle permitting the 

unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present “contentions which 

might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F.Supp. 

1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986); 

Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991). These holdings 

“reflect[] district courts' concerns for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial 

efficiency.” Costello, 765 F.Supp. at 1009.

By order filed on July 24, 2013, the magistrate judge ordered defendant Mohadjer to 

respond within ten days to plaintiff’s request for immediate injunctive relief. ECF No. 15. In a 

concurrently filed order, the court found the first amended complaint appropriate for service upon 

defendant Mohadjer. ECF No. 14. Because defendant Mohadjer had not yet been served, the 

Attorney General’s Office specially appeared and timely provided the required response

addressing plaintiff’s mental health treatment status and his allegations of imminent and 

irreparable harm (ECF No. 19). See ECF No. 20 (Findings and Recommendations) at 2. 

Plaintiff’s protestations notwithstanding, no further response was required from Mohader 

personally. Plaintiff does not present any substantive basis for revisiting the ruling at issue. 

As an alternative to injunctive relief upon reconsideration, plaintiff requests the issuance 

of a “certificate of appeal.” ECF No. 35. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), the courts of appeal 

have jurisdiction over an interlocutory order of the district courts “refusing” an injunction. 

Ordinarily, an order granting or denying a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) is not an 

appealable interlocutory order. SEIU v. Nat’l Union of Healthcare Workers, 598 F.3d 1060, 1067 

(9th Cir. 2010). However, an order regarding a TRO that possesses the qualities of a preliminary 

injunction is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Id. Here, plaintiff sought a 

temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction. See ECF No. 31 at 1 (requesting a 

Case 2:13-cv-01193-WBS-AC Document 41 Filed 10/10/13 Page 2 of 3
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

3

“TRO/injunction”); see also ECF No. 17 at 2 (seeking preliminary injunction under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 65(a)). The court considered and rejected these requests under the standards for preliminary 

injunctive relief as well as those applicable to TROs. ECF No. 20 (Findings and 

Recommendations) at 2-3; ECF No. 32 (Order denying immediate injunctive relief). 

Accordingly, the court concludes that the order denying preliminary injunctive relief is an 

appealable order. 

However, plaintiff must file a notice of appeal in order to proceed. The court will direct 

that plaintiff’s request for a “certificate of appeal” be construed as a notice of appeal of the 

interlocutory order denying plaintiff’s motions for immediate injunctive relief. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 36) is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s request for a certificate of appeal (ECF No. 35) is construed as a notice of 

appeal of the September 13, 2013 Order denying plaintiff’s request for immediate injunctive 

relief (ECF No. 32). 

Dated: October 9, 2013

/walk1193.rec

Case 2:13-cv-01193-WBS-AC Document 41 Filed 10/10/13 Page 3 of 3