Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00269/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00269-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY ERVIN,

NO. CIV. S-05-269 LKK/GGH PS

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF

CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s request for

reconsideration of the court’s August 15, 2005 order, adopting in

part the magistrate judge’s May 13, 2005 findings and

recommendations. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration is denied. 

"Under the ‘law of the case' doctrine a court is generally

precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been decided

by the same court, or a higher court in the identical case."

United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir.

1997)(citing Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 153, 154 (9th Cir.), cert.

Case 2:05-cv-00269-LKK -GGH Document 45 Filed 02/27/06 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

2

denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993)). Although motions to reconsider are

directed to the sound discretion of the court, 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, 824

F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988),

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." Generally speaking, before reconsideration may be granted

there must be a change in the controlling law or facts, the need

to correct a clear error, or the need to prevent manifest

injustice. See Alexander, 106 F.3d at 876. 

Motion to reconsider are not vehicles permitting the

unsuccessful party to "rehash" arguments previously presented. See

Costello v. United States Government, 765 F.Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D.

Cal. 1991). Nor is a motion to reconsider justified on the basis

of new evidence available prior to the court's ruling. See Fay

Corp. v. BAT Holdings One, Inc., 651 F.Supp. 307, 309 (W.D. Wash.

1987), aff'd, 896 F.2d 1227 (9th Cir. 1990). Finally, "after

thoughts" or "shifting of ground" do not constitute an appropriate

basis for reconsideration. See id. These relatively restrictive

standards "reflect[] district courts' concern for preserving

dwindling resources and promoting judicial efficiency." Costello,

765 F. Supp. at 1009.

Case 2:05-cv-00269-LKK -GGH Document 45 Filed 02/27/06 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

1 Notably, plaintiff himself concedes that he should have

raised this objection in his initial objections filed in response

to the findings and recommendations. 

3

In the case at bar, plaintiff fails to demonstrate that there

has been any change in the controlling law or facts, or that there

is a need to correct a clear error, or prevent manifest injustice.

Plaintiff is merely raising an additional objection to the

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations.1

Specifically, plaintiff challenges the way the magistrate

judge computed the time defendants had to file a renewed motion to

dismiss. The court notes that the magistrate judge already

addressed this exact concern in the initial findings and

recommendations. See Findings and Recommendations at 8:16-22. 

Even if plaintiff’s concerns had not been addressed by the

magistrate judge, plaintiff’s grounds for reconsideration are not

based on new law or facts and do not establish that there was a

clear error in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations.

For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 24, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-00269-LKK -GGH Document 45 Filed 02/27/06 Page 3 of 3