Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01871/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01871-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. KOUBONG, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-01871-TLN-CSK

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed objections to orders filed by this 

Court on September 6, 2024, and September 17, 2024. (ECF No. 22.) This Court construes 

Plaintiff’s objections to these orders as requests for reconsideration. 

Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the Court, FritoLay 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. Thus, Local Rule 230(j) 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.” Id. 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 

Case 2:24-cv-01871-TLN-CSK Document 30 Filed 01/08/25 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

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).

In the order filed September 6, 2024, this Court adopted the findings and 

recommendations filed July 17, 2024, recommending denial of Plaintiff’s second motion for 

preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 19.) The September 6, 2024,

order stated that this Court considered Plaintiff’s objections to the July 17, 2024, findings and 

recommendations. (Id.) In the pending request for reconsideration, Plaintiff claims that in the 

September 6, 2024, order, this Court failed to rule on Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and 

recommendations filed July 17, 2024. (ECF No. 22 at 1.) Plaintiff claims this Court should have 

either sustained or overruled Plaintiff’s objections to the July 17, 2024, findings and 

recommendations. (Id.) This argument is without merit as this Court considered Plaintiff’s 

objections to the July 17, 2024, findings and recommendations, as stated in the September 6, 

2024, order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the September 6, 2024, order 

is DENIED.

In the order filed September 17, 2024, this Court construed Plaintiff’s objections to the 

magistrate judge’s order filed July 16, 2024, denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of 

counsel as a request for reconsideration of the July 16, 2024, order. (ECF No. 20.) This Court 

denied Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration. (Id.) In the pending request for reconsideration, 

Plaintiff claims that in the order filed September 17, 2024, this Court wrongly construed 

Plaintiff’s objections to the July 16, 2024 order as a request for reconsideration. (ECF No. 22 at 

2.) This argument is without merit. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the 

September 17, 2024 order is DENIED. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 22), 

construed as requests for reconsiderations of the orders filed September 6, 2024, and September 

17, 2024, are DENIED.

//

//

Case 2:24-cv-01871-TLN-CSK Document 30 Filed 01/08/25 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

Date: January 7, 2025

___________________________________ 

TROY L. NUNLEY

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-01871-TLN-CSK Document 30 Filed 01/08/25 Page 3 of 3