Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05033/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05033-4/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

ST. MICHAEL DOC BALZARINI, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

EDWARD S. ALAMEDIA, JR., )

)

Defendat. )

____________________________________)

1:01-CV-05033 AWI WMW P 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. #100]

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. 

On February 15, 2006, the undersigned issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s

Finding and Recommendation, granted Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint

because Plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. On March 20,

2006, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. An administrative review of the docket reveals

that this motion has not been ruled on.

The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d

1185, 1198 (9 Cir.1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9 Cir.1992). th th

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 (9 Cir.1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the court to th

Case 1:01-cv-05033-AWI-WMW Document 107 Filed 03/20/07 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

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 (9 Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth th

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 (9 Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Rule 59(e), any th

motion to alter or amend judgment shall be filed no later than ten days after entry of judgment. Rule

59(e), however, is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and

conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890

(9 Cir.2000). th

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff contends, as he did in his opposition and

objections, that he did exhaust his administrative remedies because his request for a specialist was

granted. This argument was already addressed and rejected by the court. The grant of an appeal to

see a specialist is not sufficient to show exhaustion of a claim regarding Defendants’ deliberate

difference to Plaintiff’s medical needs.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is

DENIED (Document #100). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05033-AWI-WMW Document 107 Filed 03/20/07 Page 2 of 2