Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00277/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00277-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH PUCKETT, CASE NO. CV F 05-0277 LJO DLB

Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S

RECONSIDERATION MOTION

vs. (Doc. 93.)

CHIEF OF POLICE DYER,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Joseph Puckett (“Mr. Puckett”) seeks reconsideration of dismissal of this claims based

on his disobedience of orders to appear at an independent medical examination (“IME”) and to sign a

release for Social Security Administration (“SSA”) records. This Court DENIES reconsideration in

absence of this Court’s clear error.

Reconsideration is appropriate when the district court is presented with newly discovered

evidence, committed clear error, or there is an intervening change in controlling law. School District

No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. A C and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9 Cir. 1993), cert. denied,

th

512 U.S. 1236, 114 S.Ct. 2742 (1994). “Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct

manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Publisher’s Resource, Inc. v.

Walker Davis Publications, Inc., 762 F.2d 557, 561 (7 Cir. 1985) (quoting Keene Corp. v. International th

Fidelity Ins. Co., 561 F.Supp. 656, 665-666 (N.D. Ill. 1982), aff’d, 736 F.2d 388 (7 Cir. 1984) th

(emphasis in original));see Novato Fire Protection Dist. v. United States, 181 F.3d 1135, 1142, n. 6 (9

th

Case 1:05-cv-00277-LJO -DLB Document 94 Filed 02/28/08 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

Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1129, 120 S.Ct. 2005 (2000). Reconsideration should not be used “to

argue new facts or issues that inexcusably were not presented to the court in the matter previously

decided.” See Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F.Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 1990). Under this

Court’s Local Rule 78-230(k), a party seeking reconsideration must demonstrate “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.”

In his reconsideration papers, Mr. Puckett wishes “to apologize for words used” and appears to

excuse is disobedience of discovery orders by claiming that he ultimately submitted to an IME and

signed an SSA records release. Mr. Puckett ignores that he failed comply with deadlines to do so and

unreasonably delayed to prejudice defendants. The key is not that Mr. Puckett submitted to an IME and

signed an SSA records release. The key is that he delayed so long after court ordered deadlines to

prevent defendants to address and defend Mr. Puckett’s claims meaningfully. As such, Mr. Puckett has

not satisfied a necessary requirements for reconsideration, in this case, this Court’s clear error.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00277-LJO -DLB Document 94 Filed 02/28/08 Page 2 of 2