Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00878/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00878-13/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIRK DOUGLAS WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0878 LKK GGH P

vs.

T. FELKER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Attached to plaintiff’s December 23, 2009, objections to the findings and

recommendations is a request for reconsideration of the September 30, 2009, order adopting the

April 2, 2009, findings and recommendations in part and granting plaintiff thirty days to file an

amended complaint as to his First Amendment claim. The magistrate judge found the motion for

reconsideration to be timely filed. 

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 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

Case 2:08-cv-00878-LKK -GGH Document 54 Filed 03/03/10 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

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.

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and finds it to be

without merit.

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, this court's

order of September 30, 2009, is affirmed; plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within

twenty-eight days of the date of this order.

DATED: March 3, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-00878-LKK -GGH Document 54 Filed 03/03/10 Page 2 of 2