Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06287/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06287-3/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

27

28 On June 6, 2006, this action was re-assigned from the docket of the Honorable Robert E. Coyle to the 1

undersigned.

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIRK MONROE DAVIS, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

D.G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-6287-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION, WHICH WAS

INCORRECTLY DOCKETED AS A

MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

(Document #13)

Plaintiff, Kirk Monroe Davis (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 

On September 21, 2004, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On

November 10, 2004, the Magistrate Judge entered Findings and Recommendations that

recommended this motion be denied. On September 29, 2005, the District Court Judge

previously assigned to this action adopted the Findings and Recommendations and denied the 1

motion for a preliminary injunction.

A review of the docket reveals that on October 18, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion of

objection and request for reconsideration by the District Court of the Magistrate Judge’s ruling

on the motion for a preliminary injunction. This motion for reconsideration was incorrectly

docketed as a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Case 1:04-cv-06287-LJO-DLB Document 20 Filed 08/28/06 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

27

28

2

The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d

1185, 1198 (9 Cir.1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9 Cir.1992). th th

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin

Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9 Cir. 1983) th

(en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., 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, 828 F.2d 514 (9 Cir. 1987). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule th

78-230(k) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist

which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for

the motion.” 

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge had no

authority to deny his motion for a preliminary injunction or make any rulings in this action. 

Contrary to Plaintiff’s position, Local Rule 72-302(b)(c)(17) specifically refers all civil rights

cases brought by prisoners, including all motions, to the Magistrate Judge and no specific order

by the assigned District Court judge referring a motion is required. Because the Magistrate

Judge issued Findings and Recommendations, not a final order denying the motion, Plaintiff’s

consent was not required. The September 29, 2005 order adopting the Findings and

Recommendations, signed by a District Court Judge, is the final order regarding Plaintiff’s

motion for a preliminary injunction, not the Findings and Recommendations. 

 According, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, which was incorrectly docketed as a

motion for a preliminary injunction, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06287-LJO-DLB Document 20 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 2