Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00049/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00049-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS II,

Plaintiff, No. 2:05-cv-0049-MCE-DAD P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On January 26, 2006, this action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On February 9, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for

reconsideration in which he states that he “understands better what the court is asking for” and

“asks this court for another opportunity to state his claim for relief.” Plaintiff has also submitted

two requests for judicial notice of newspaper articles pursuant to Rule 201.

The documents attached to plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice do not present

facts generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of this court or capable of accurate and

ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. See

Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The requests for judicial notice will be denied.

///

Case 2:05-cv-00049-MCE -DAD Document 20 Filed 05/01/06 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

A request for reconsideration is directed to the sound discretion of the court. See

Frito-Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981). A party

seeking reconsideration must brief the “new or different facts or circumstances” which were not

shown previously “or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 78-230(k). This rule

is grounded on the principle that decisions on legal issues made in a case should be followed

unless there is substantially different evidence or new controlling authority, or the party

demonstrates that the court’s prior decision was clearly erroneous and resulted in injustice. See

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). A motion to reconsider is not a vehicle by which

an unsuccessful party can “rehash” arguments or 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 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).

In this case, the first four pages of plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration rehash

allegations and arguments previously presented in plaintiff’s original complaint, his amended

complaint, and his objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. 

Plaintiff’s contentions in these pages do not present new or different facts or circumstances that

were not shown previously and fail to demonstrate that the order filed January 26, 2006, was

clearly erroneous and resulted in injustice.

On the final page of his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff expresses his desire

to add three new defendants and claims wholly unrelated to the claims alleged in his previous

pleadings. The court will not set aside the judgment entered on January 26, 2006, to permit

plaintiff to allege claims that arose in February 2006. If plaintiff has exhausted available

administrative remedies on his new claims, he may file a new action alleging those claims. The

court expresses no opinion on the merits of those claims.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00049-MCE -DAD Document 20 Filed 05/01/06 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s February 9, 2006 motion for reconsideration is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s February 27, 2006 request for judicial notice is denied; and

3. Plaintiff’s April 18, 2006 request for judicial notice is denied.

DATED: April 28, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/wood0049.recon

Case 2:05-cv-00049-MCE -DAD Document 20 Filed 05/01/06 Page 3 of 3