Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03789/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03789-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Defendant
John Coleman
Plaintiff

Document Text:

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

Court filings in this order are identified by their docket number and page on the Electronic

Case Filing (“ECF”) docket sheet.

ORDER

C 08-03789

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

Oakland Division

JOHN COLEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-03789 LB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

& DENYING PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION

TO HAVE COURT LOOK AT ‘FULL

PHYSICAL DISABILITY ISSUE’”

[Docket Nos. 60, 62]

On July 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration asking the Court to reconsider its

July 14, 2010 Order that denied Plaintiff’s Mandamus Petition to Enforce Judgment against

Defendant Social Security Administration. Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF No. 60 at 1.1 On July 30,

2010, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to have Court look at ‘Full Physical Disability Issue.’” July 30, 2010

Mot., ECF No. 62.

Under the Civil Local Rules, plaintiffs must seek permission from the Court prior to filing a

Motion for Reconsideration. Civil L.R. 7-9. In seeking permission from the Court, plaintiff’s must

show that (1) at the time of the motion, a material difference in fact or law exists that was not

previously presented to the Court, (2) there has been an emergence of new material facts or a change

Case 4:08-cv-03789-LB Document 63 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER

C 08-03789

2

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

in law since the Court issued the Order, or (3) there was a “manifest failure by the Court to consider

material facts or dispositive legal arguments” that were presented to it. Civil L.R. 7-9(b). Even if

the Court grants Plaintiff permission to file a Motion for Reconsideration, reconsideration is only

appropriate in the “highly unusual circumstances” when (1) the Court is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) the underlying decision was in clear error or manifestly unjust, or (3) there

is an intervening change in controlling law. See School Dis. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v.

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

Plaintiff does not present any evidence that any of the three requirements of the Local Rules are

satisfied. Moreover, even if the Court grants Plaintiff permission to file a Motion for

Reconsideration, he has not shown that there has been newly discovered evidence, that the

underlying decision was in clear error or manifestly unjust, or that there has been an intervening

change in controlling law. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Since Plaintiff’s “full physical disability issue” was fully adjudicated before Judge Wayne D.

Brazil and closed on August 7, 2009, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s “Motion to have Court look at

‘Full Physical Disability Issue.’”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2010 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:08-cv-03789-LB Document 63 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 2