Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05018/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05018-16/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAVIN M. RHODES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. ROBINSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:02-cv-05018-LJO DLB P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Docs. 146, 151) 

Plaintiff Kavin M. Rhodes (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 4, 2008, plaintiff filed a

motion for reconsideration of the court’s decision denying his motion for the issuance of five

subpoenas duces tecum. (Docs. 145, 146). On April 11, 2008, plaintiff filed a second motion for

reconsideration of the same order. (Doc. 151). 

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly authorize a motion for

reconsideration before judgment, “(a) district court has the inherent power to reconsider and modify

its interlocutory orders prior to the entry of judgment...” Smith v. Massachusetts (2005) 543 US 462,

125 S.Ct. 1129, 1139 (internal quotations omitted). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy,

to be used sparingly.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop (9 Cir. 2000) 229 F3d 877, 890 th

(dealing with post-judgment motion). A motion for reconsideration will not be granted, absent

highly unusual circumstances, “unless the District Court is presented with newly discovered

evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” (Id.,

internal quotes omitted). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 78-230(k) requires

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 161 Filed 04/17/08 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

27

28

2

a party to show the “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.”

In the order at issue, the Court denied plaintiff’s request for the issuance of five subpoena

duces tecum. (Doc. 145). Plaintiff had sought subpoenas commanding the defendants and opposing

counsel to bring to trial, inter alia, the CD player confiscated from him on May 3, 2001, as well as

the original cell search log for May 3, 2001, for CCI-IV-A state prison. (Doc. 145). 

Plaintiff’s motion for the subpoena duces tecum was denied by the court on the grounds that

plaintiff did not indicate in his pretrial statement that he intended to offer these items as exhibits.

Plaintiff was advised that the pre-trial order explicitly stated that no exhibits other than those listed

in the pre-trial order would be admitted unless there a showing was made that the order should be

modified to prevent manifest injustice, and the court held that plaintiff had not made such a showing.

(Doc. 145). Further, plaintiff was advised that the cell log book was listed by defendants as an

exhibit, and that plaintiff would be provided with a copy at trial. 

In his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff contends that defendants have altered photocopies

of the cell search log, and also that defendants intend to introduce forged photographs of the CD

player in question as exhibits at trial. (Doc. 151, p.2:13-16, p.3:25-4:8, and p.2, FN1.). Plaintiff

alleges that by issuing its order, the court “is set upon the course of allowing the defendants to

knowingly put on perjured testimony and fabricated evidence thereto.” (Doc. 146, p.3:7-10).

Plaintiff states in his motion for reconsideration that although the CD player is not listed as an

exhibit, photographs of the CD player are listed as exhibits for both parties. 

The court finds that Plaintiff has not presented the court with newly discovered evidence,

evidence that the court committed clear error, or that there is an intervening change in the controlling

law sufficient to warrant the granting of plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

Further, during the telephonic pre-trial conference held February 22, 2008, plaintiff made

known that he would object to the use of copies of the cell search log book at trial. Counsel for

defendants indicated that he was unaware of whether the original cell search log still existed. The

court advised defendants that they were put on notice of plaintiff’s objection to the use of copies.

The Court also advised plaintiff that he may file motions in limine, detailing his objections to various

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 161 Filed 04/17/08 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

27

28 All motions in limine must be filed with the Court by April 22, 2008. (Doc. 129, p.16). 1

3

items of evidence defendants intend to introduce at trial, including photographs of the CD player in

question. Finally, plaintiff was also advised that the trial judge would hear plaintiff’s objections 1

prior to submitting these items into evidence. 

Therefore, based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration, filed April 4, 2008

and April 11, 2008, are HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 16, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 161 Filed 04/17/08 Page 3 of 3