Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00297/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00297-6/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

ANTHONY LANE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0297 LKK JFM P

vs.

LT. K. PROVIDENCE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On October 1, 2007, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of this court's

order filed September 12, 2007, dismissing the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. Plaintiff contends that “[n]ot one 602 submitted by plaintiff made it through

screening.” (Id. at 1.)

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 2:06-cv-00297-LKK -JFM Document 38 Filed 10/22/07 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.

In the instant action, plaintiff attempts to raise the same allegation already

addressed in this court’s September 12, 2007 order (at pages 2-3). Plaintiff has provided no new

or additional evidence that he pursued Log No. 04-M-1158 through the third level decision prior

to bringing suit in federal court. 

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

order of September 12, 2007 is affirmed. 

DATED: October 22, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00297-LKK -JFM Document 38 Filed 10/22/07 Page 2 of 2