Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00412/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00412-1/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Carlo Guiliano Cresci is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on April 28, 2020. 

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s April 7, 2020 order disregarding his request for judicial 

notice. Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.

On April 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed seven documents entitled “Judicial/Administrative Notice to 

the Courts” which he contends demonstrate the unsanitary conditions at CSATF. (ECF Nos. 11-17.) 

On April 7, 2020, the Court disregarded Plaintiff’s documents because they are not subject to judicial 

notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b). 

Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 

722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. 

CARLO GUILIANO CRESCI,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PERKINS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00412-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S APRIL 

7, 2020 ORDER DISREGARDING HIS REQUEST 

FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

[ECF No. 21]

Case 1:20-cv-00412-SAB Document 22 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature 

to induce the court to reverse a 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). Further, “ ‘[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and ‘recapitulation...’” of that which was already considered 

by the court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. 

Cal. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834, 856 (D N.J. 1992)). 

Similarly, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party seeking reconsideration show that “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[.]” 

In the instant motion, Plaintiff contends that the responses to his “administrative remedies” by 

Defendants are necessary to establish his claim of deliberate indifference. (ECF No. 21.) As Plaintiff 

was previously advised, the documents submitted are not the type that are subject to judicial review 

under Rule 201(b). Plaintiff’s contention that the documents are relevant to support his claims does 

not make them subject to judicial notice. In addition, Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s April 

7, 2020 order does not warrant reconsideration. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to present any new or 

difference or circumstances that did not exist upon the filing of his judicial and administrative notices. 

Rather, Plaintiff demonstrates only his misunderstanding of Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s April 7, 2020 order is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00412-SAB Document 22 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 2