Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01970/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01970-6/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

LEE THIEL PAYNE,

Plaintiff, No. 2:11-cv-1970 LKK EFB P

vs.

J. MARTIN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 5, 2013, the undersigned dismissed

defendant Martin from this action without prejudice. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that

order. 

Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or

different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon

such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or

circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal., Local Rule 230(j)(3)-

(4). 

On October 17, 2012 the assigned magistrate judge provided plaintiff with

instructions for effecting service of process on defendant Martin and warned plaintiff that failure

Case 2:11-cv-01970-TLN-EFB Document 46 Filed 04/24/13 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

to comply with the order or to show good cause for such failure would result in a

recommendation that defendant Martin be dismissed, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). After plaintiff

failed to comply with that order, the magistrate judge recommended that defendant Martin be

dismissed. Plaintiff failed to file timely objections. Thereafter, the undersigned adopted the

magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed defendant Martin . 

Through his request for reconsideration, plaintiff fails to demonstrate any new or

different facts or circumstances that entitle him to reconsideration of the order of dismissal.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration

is DENIED. 

DATED: April 23, 2013

2

Case 2:11-cv-01970-TLN-EFB Document 46 Filed 04/24/13 Page 2 of 2