Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01658-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NO. CIV.S-03-1658 LKK DAD PS

ex rel. GENE L. ROGERS, M.D.,

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

On July 21, 2006, after having conducted a de novo review of

 this matter, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings

and recommendations (“F&Rs”) and ordered that the above-captioned

consolidated cases be dismissed without prejudice to renewal by

plaintiff through a licensed attorney, or by the United States or

the State of California. The court also dismissed defendants’

previously pending motion for summary judgment as moot in view of

the dismissal without prejudice. On July 28, 2006, plaintiff

Gene L. Rogers filed a “motion for order to show cause re:

vacation judgment/order),” which requests that this court vacate

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 301 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 4
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

the F&Rs filed June 23, 2006 and the order adopting the F&Rs. 

The court construes this request as a motion to reconsider the

F&Rs and the court’s July 21, 2006 order.

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 were not shown upon such prior motion, or what

other grounds exist for the motion.” Courts considering motions

filed under Fed. R. of Civ. P. 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.

In the case at bar, plaintiff has failed to set forth a

basis for making the motion to reconsider, including any new or

different facts or circumstances that did not previously exist or

were not shown, or demonstrated other grounds that justify

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 301 Filed 09/05/06 Page 2 of 4
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

amendment or vacation of the court’s order. The consolidated qui

tam actions allege that the County of Sacramento is violating the

federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) by providing non-emergent health care

to undocumented immigrants under the County Medically Indigent

Services Program. F&Rs at 2. The Magistrate Judge dismissed the

matter because, among other things, “permitting plaintiff to

proceed pro se in these wide-ranging consolidated actions exposes

the United States and the State of California to considerable

risks in terms of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Id. at 5

(citation omitted). See also id. at 4 (collecting cases where

district courts have dismissed qui tam cases brought by a pro se

relator without prejudice to renewing the action by and through

counsel). Having examined the F&Rs at issue in this matter, the

court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis is legally

sound and firmly supported by case law. The court was thus

justified in adopting the F&Rs.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 301 Filed 09/05/06 Page 3 of 4
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

 On August 17, 2006, plaintiff filed a document requesting oral argument on this matter 1

for September 15, 2006. Given the court’s ruling, this request is DENIED. 

4

Because plaintiff has only rehashed unsuccessful arguments

and failed to set forth any “new or different facts or

circumstances that were not shown upon such prior motion, or what

other grounds exist for the motion,” See Local Rule 78-230(k),

plaintiff’s motion to reconsider must be DENIED. 

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 301 Filed 09/05/06 Page 4 of 4