Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00697/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00697-14/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY ROY KEETON,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-0697-GEB-JFM-P

vs.

SERGEANT CAROLL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed a request for reconsideration of this court’s order filed March

22, 2006, granting in part a defense motion to dismiss claims for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies prior to suit. 

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 78-230(k)

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.” 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

Case 2:04-cv-00697-ALA Document 83 Filed 01/18/07 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

2

erroneous and would 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).

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this court’s order dismissing his claims against

defendants Moreno and Jones and plaintiff’s claims against defendants Sahota, Blackford and

Van Huesen arising out of the alleged denial of food and water between November 12, 2003 and

November 17, 2003, all for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit as required by

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, the evidence he presents in support of his

motion for reconsideration does not show that he exhausted administrative remedies for the

dismissed claims prior to filing the instant action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 28, 2006 motion

for reconsideration of this court’s March 22, 2006 order is denied. 

Dated: January 17, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00697-ALA Document 83 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 2