Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00966/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00966-13/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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

CHARLES R. GORTON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

OFFICER BICK, et. al., )

 )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CASE NO: 1:05-cv-0354 LJO DLB P 

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 42)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. On April 4, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. (Doc.

42). 

By orderissued March 7, 2008, the Court denied plaintiff’s request for an issuance of a subpoena

duces tecum to be served on the California Department of Corrections. (Doc. 27). The Court expressed

concern that plaintiff had not requested the documents from the defendant through the regular channels

of discovery, as it appeared that defendant mayhave had possession, custody or control of the documents

sought. The Court further explained that unless plaintiff provided an offer of proof concerning his

efforts to obtain the documents, the existence of the documents and the location of the documents, the

Court would not order the U.S. Marshal to serve a subpoena duces tecum sought by plaintiff. The Court

Case 2:11-cv-00966-DAD Document 54 Filed 10/02/08 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

27

28 A review of the court docket indicates that plaintiff re-filed his motion on April 16, 2008, which shall be ruled upon

1

by separate order. (Doc. 45)

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

denied plaintiff’s request without prejudice to renewal.1

The order also explained that discovery was opened in this matter on January 23, 2008, and that

discovery is self-executing until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks

relief from the Court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Motion for Reconsideration

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 AcceptanceCorp. 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 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 (9th Cir. 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.”

In his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff contends that defendant and/or his counsel have either

submitted copies of his discovery requests to the Court, and/or requested the U.S. Marshal serve

documents upon the Court. Plaintiff contends that defendant and his counsel have been fabricating

documents or requests on the part of plaintiff, and in his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff seeks an

Case 2:11-cv-00966-DAD Document 54 Filed 10/02/08 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

injunction or sanctions.

It appears that plaintiff has misunderstood the Court’s order issued May 7, 2008. The Court’s

order did not state that the Court had received any of plaintiff’s discovery requests aside from his motion

for a subpoena duces tecum. Nor did the Court’s order state that any documents were ordered served

by the U.S. Marshal. The Court simply addressed plaintiff’s request for the issuance of a subpoena, filed

on March 7, 2007. 

Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered evidence, has not demonstrated that the court

committed clear error, and has not argued that there has been an intervening change in the controlling

law. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed April 4, 2008, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 1, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-00966-DAD Document 54 Filed 10/02/08 Page 3 of 3