Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02912/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02912-14/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

CHARLES CHATMAN,

Plaintiff, No. 2:06-cv-2912 LKK EFB P

vs.

TOM FELKER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On April 29, 2009, the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. Dckt. No. 16. Currently before the court is plaintiff’s July 16, 2012 motion for

reconsideration of that order. Dckt. No. 74. Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion. Dckt. No.

75.

Reconsideration is appropriate if the court (1) is presented with newly discovered

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is

an intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

(9th Cir. 1993). Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what 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,” and “why the facts or

circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal., Local Rule 230(j)(3)-

1

Case 2:06-cv-02912-RCJ Document 79 Filed 08/10/12 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

(4). See also E.D. Cal. Local Rule 303(b) (“Rulings by Magistrate Judges pursuant to this Rule

shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen (14) days

calculated from the date of service of the ruling on the parties, unless a different time is 

prescribed by the Magistrate Judge or the Judge.”). Plaintiff’s untimely motion does not

describe new or different facts or circumstances that would warrant reconsideration of the

court’s April 29, 2009 order. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dckt. No. 74) is denied. 

DATED: August 10, 2012.

2

Case 2:06-cv-02912-RCJ Document 79 Filed 08/10/12 Page 2 of 2