Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02166/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02166-9/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

TIMOTHY BRYAN BROOKS, No. 2:02-cv-2166-MCE-PAN-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff has filed a Request for Reconsideration of this

Court's Order filed March 1, 2006, ordering that a request for

production of documents be disregarded, denying a request for a

criminal complaint and FBI investigation and denying a Motion to

Compel. 

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. 

Case 2:02-cv-02166-MCE -EFB Document 74 Filed 03/31/06 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

2

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

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.

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-02166-MCE -EFB Document 74 Filed 03/31/06 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

3

In the instant action, Plaintiff accuses the magistrate

judge of unfairness but offers no new facts, circumstances or

grounds for the requests the magistrate judge denied.

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration,

this Court's Order of March 1, 2006, is affirmed. 

DATED: March 30, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02166-MCE -EFB Document 74 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 3