Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-02321/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-02321-0/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

 The court notes that the dismissal of this action was without prejudice.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Jason Saunders,

Plaintiff, 2:98-cv-02321-GEB-PAN-P

vs.

Cal A. Terhune, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On February 26, 2003, this action was dismissed and

judgment was entered April 14, 2003.1 On November 2, 2005,

plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration. 

Standards For Motions To Reconsider

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

Case 2:98-cv-02321-GEB -PAN Document 152 Filed 11/08/05 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

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.” The rule derives from

the “law of the case” doctrine which provides that the decisions

on legal issues made in a case “should be followed unless there

is substantially different evidence . . . new controlling

authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would

result in injustice.” 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), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1064

(1986). 

Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

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.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(b) requires that

"any motion for new trial shall be filed no later than 10 days

after entry of the judgment." In this case, plaintiff's motion

Case 2:98-cv-02321-GEB -PAN Document 152 Filed 11/08/05 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

was filed over two years from the entry of the dismissal order

and judgment. Plaintiff claims Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620

(9th Cir. 2005) provides new controlling authority, but he fails

to explain why he waited over seven months after Ngo was decided

to seek reconsideration. Plaintiff's motion must, therefore, be

denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's

November 3, 2005, motion for reconsideration is denied. 

DATED: November 7, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:98-cv-02321-GEB -PAN Document 152 Filed 11/08/05 Page 3 of 3