Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00115/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00115-13/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEI FRAZIER, No. 2:04-cv-0115-MCE-PAN-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

DR. JOHN KOFOED, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On October 31, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of this court’s October

13, 2006, finding plaintiff’s objections untimely filed. 

Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, FritoLay 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 [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.” 

///

Case 2:04-cv-00115-MCE -PAN Document 82 Filed 04/20/07 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

2

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). 

On August 17, 2006, findings and recommendations issued; plaintiff was advised that

objections were to be filed within 14 days. Plaintiff filed objections on September 15, 2006, and

this court found plaintiff presented those objections to prison authorities for mailing on

September 8, 2006. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-72, 275 (1988). However, because

plaintiff’s objections were due on or before August 31, 2006, plaintiff’s objections were deemed

untimely filed. (October 13, 2006 Order at 2.)

In his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff states he “was given 14 days to file objections

at which time plaintiff did and it was sent out before the 14th of 9-06.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff

complains that the prison has a “history of holding incoming legal mail days and sometimes

weeks before giving it to the inmates, along with putting legal mail out to be sent out.” (Id. at 1.) 

Plaintiff also stated he was “in the process of trying to obtain affidavits from the staff who know

about this problem.” (Id. at 2.) Over four months have passed and plaintiff has failed to provide

an affidavit in support of his request. However, even if the court construes plaintiff’s statement

that “it was sent out before the 14th of 9-06" to mean plaintiff presented his objections to prison

authorities on September 6, such filing would still be untimely as objections were due on or

before August 31, 2006. 

Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to provide new or

different facts or circumstances sufficient to demonstrate plaintiff’s objections were timely

presented to prison authorities for mailing. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon

reconsideration, this court’s order of October 13, 2006 is affirmed. 

Dated: April 20, 2007

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00115-MCE -PAN Document 82 Filed 04/20/07 Page 2 of 2