Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01589/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01589-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD ROUSAY,

NO. CIV. S-05-1589 LKK/KJM PS

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

PAUL CELLUCCI, et al.

Defendants.

 /

The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s brief entitled

“objection to order.” These objections were filed after this court

adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in the

above captioned case. Accordingly, the court will construe the

objections as a motion to reconsider this court’s November 20, 2006

order adopting the findings and recommendations. 

“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. 1993), cert. denied,

Case 2:05-cv-01589-LKK -KJM Document 26 Filed 04/25/07 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

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.

In the case at bar, plaintiff fails to explain how there was

a change in the controlling law or facts, or a need to correct a

clear error. Plaintiff makes reference to a notice he filed in

October 2005. This notice was not addressed in the magistrate

judge’s findings and recommendations. Moreover, the October notice

fails to set forth the grounds on which plaintiff seeks relief.

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s “Objection to Order” (Doc. 19) is hereby

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 25, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01589-LKK -KJM Document 26 Filed 04/25/07 Page 2 of 2