Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01496/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01496-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL ALCALA FARIAS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

DEPUTY LEWIS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 05-1496 AWI LJO

ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS 

(Documents #13 & #14)

On November 23, 2005, Plaintiff filed several papers which this court construed as a

complaint. On November 30, 2005, the Magistrate Judge dismissed the complaint based on its

numerous pleading deficiencies, failure to state a cognizable claim and apparent attempt to

pursue claims for nonplaintiffs and to vex defendants. In response to the order, on December

12, 2005, Plaintiff filed a form amended complaint (“amended complaint”) which appeared to

name the same defendants as Plaintiff’s original complaint. The amended complaint was also

unclear, but took issue with the arrest of Plaintiff’s wife and sought the return of money

plaintiff’s family members paid in bail. 

On December 14, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that

recommended the court dismiss this action without prejudice on grounds that the amended

complaint failed to: (1) satisfy pleading, standing and real-party-in-interest requirements; and (2)

state a cognizable claim. On December 19, 2005, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and

Case 1:05-cv-01496-AWI-LJO Document 15 Filed 01/11/06 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

27

28 2

Recommendations.

On December 27, 2005, the court adopted the Findings and Recommendations and

dismissed and this action. The court again explained that Plaintiff does not have standing to file

an action concerning alleged constitutional violations that may have happened to his wife.

On December 27, 2005 and December 29, 2005, Plaintiff filed documents entitled 

“objections.” The court construes these documents as requests for the court to reconsider the

December 27, 2005 order dismissing this action.

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, 925-26 (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, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665

(E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 

In his objections, Plaintiff makes arguments that have been considered and rejected by the

court. Nothing in these documents convinces the court that the court erred by dismissing this

action. The amended complaint was vague and it appears Plaintiff was trying to raise violations

of other people’s constitutional rights.

Case 1:05-cv-01496-AWI-LJO Document 15 Filed 01/11/06 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

27

28 3

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections, which have been construed as motions for

reconsideration, are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01496-AWI-LJO Document 15 Filed 01/11/06 Page 3 of 3