Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02421/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02421-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Udi Fishman
Petitioner
Gary Swarthout
Respondent

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UDI FISHMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

GARY SWARTHOUT,

Respondent.

No. 2:13-cv-2421 GGH P

ORDER

On February 11, 2014, the undersigned filed an order denying without prejudice 

petitioner‟s request for law library access. Plaintiff has filed a request for clarification or

reconsideration of that order.

Parties seeking reconsideration should demonstrate “new or different facts or 

circumstances [which] are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior 

motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion” and “why the facts or circumstances were not 

shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230 (j); see United States v. Alexander, 

106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1997) (reconsideration appropriate for a change in the controlling law, 

facts, evidence, or other circumstances; a need to correct a clear error; or a need to prevent 

manifest injustice); see also School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 

1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

/////

Case 2:13-cv-02421-GGH Document 15 Filed 03/03/14 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

Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, Frito-Lay 

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 [] claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, 

or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 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 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).

“After thoughts” or “shifting of ground” are not appropriate bases for reconsideration. 

Fay Corp. v. BAT Holdings I, Inc., 651 F.Supp. 307, 309 (W.D. Wash.1987), aff‟d, 896 F.2d 

1227 (9th Cir.1990). The standards “reflect[ ] district courts‟ concern for preserving dwindling 

resources and promoting judicial efficiency.” Costello v. United States Government, 765 F.Supp.

1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal.1991). “While Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend 

a previous order, the rule offers an „extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 

finality and conservation of judicial resources.‟” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 

2003) (quoting 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 59.30[4] (3d ed.2000)).

Here, petitioner presents no new facts or circumstances since the filing of his original 

request. (ECF No. 14.) A review of the docket indicates that circumstances have not changed in 

that a response to the petition has not yet been filed and therefore petitioner‟s optional reply is not 

yet due. Therefore, petitioner‟s request is still premature. As the court explained in the February 

11, 2014 order, petitioner may renew his motion if he is denied library access when it is time to 

prepare his reply.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:13-cv-02421-GGH Document 15 Filed 03/03/14 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, IT IS ORDERED that: Plaintiff‟s request for clarification, construed as a 

motion for reconsideration, filed February 21, 2014, (ECF No. 14), is denied.

Dated: March 3, 2014

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076/Fish2421.Recon

Case 2:13-cv-02421-GGH Document 15 Filed 03/03/14 Page 3 of 3