Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06554/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06554-17/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 The motion is directed to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill. However, Judge O’Neill is no longer 1

assigned to this case, the parties having consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Doc. 74.) 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES L. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O MORALES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-06554-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 80)

Plaintiff James L. Thompson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is currently set for jury

trial on April 21, 2008. On November 5, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the

court’s order denying in part his motion to compel. Defendants did not file a response. 1

The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d

1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir. 1992).

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to make new

arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc.,

841 F.2d 918, 925-6 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the court to rethink

what it has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D.Ariz.1998).

“A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision,

and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original

Case 1:04-cv-06554-SMS Document 84 Filed 02/13/08 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

decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d

1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin

Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983),

en banc. To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce

the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634

F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other grounds 828 F.2d

514 (9thCir. 1987). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 78-230(k) requires a party

to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration consists of a bare request for reconsideration and a

recitation of the discovery requests at issue in his motion to compel. Because plaintiff’s motion is

devoid of any support for his position that he is entitled to reconsideration, plaintiff’s motion is

HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06554-SMS Document 84 Filed 02/13/08 Page 2 of 2