Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00691/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00691-1/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

CLETE REO HART,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0691 DFL DAD P

vs.

DR. H. SOUFI, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On June 14, 2005, this action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies before bringing the action. On June 17, 2005, plaintiff

submitted a letter requesting reconsideration and asking the court to re-open the case. On July

19, 2005, plaintiff submitted a second letter reiterating his requests. 

Requests for reconsideration are directed to the sound discretion of the court. See

Frito-Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981). A party

seeking reconsideration of an order in this district must brief the “new or different facts or

circumstances” which were not shown previously “or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 

Local Rule 78-230(k). This rule is grounded on the principle that decisions on legal issues made

in a case should be followed unless there is substantially different evidence or new controlling

authority, or the party demonstrates that the court’s prior decision was clearly erroneous and

Case 2:05-cv-00691-DFL-DAD Document 11 Filed 05/10/06 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

2

resulted in injustice. See 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). A motion to reconsider

is not a vehicle by which an unsuccessful party can “rehash” arguments or 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 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).

Plaintiff’s requests for reconsideration rehash the futility argument advanced in

his complaint. Although plaintiff argues that he has submitted many grievances about an alleged

conspiracy involving the defendants and dozens of other prison officials, he offers no argument

or evidence that he submitted and exhausted a grievance on the specific claims alleged in this

action. Plaintiff’s requests for reconsideration do not present new or different facts or

circumstances which were not shown previously. Nor do plaintiff’s requests demonstrate that

this court’s order filed June 14, 2005, was clearly erroneous and resulted in injustice.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 17, 2005 request for reconsideration and to re-open the case is

denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s July 19, 2005 request for reconsideration and to re-open the case is

denied.

DATED: 5/9/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00691-DFL-DAD Document 11 Filed 05/10/06 Page 2 of 2