Bryant v. Baires
Filing
49
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 44 , signed by District Judge M. James Lorenz on 3/29/10. (Hellings, J)
<![CDATA[
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 JAMES E. BRYANT, CDCR #C-48302, Civil No. 08-1165 MJL (PCL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION
Plaintiff, vs. M. BAIRES, Correctional Lieutenant, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 44]
I.
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration A. Standard of Review
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for reconsideration. However, Local Rule 78-230(k) does provide for applications for
reconsideration. See E.D. Cal. CIVLR 78-230(k). A motion for reconsideration must include, in part, "what 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." Id. ///
K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\08cv1165-Deny Reconsideration.wpd
-1-
08cv1165 MLJ (PCL)
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
B.
Discussion
Here, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's March 3, 2010 Order in which the Court modified the briefing schedule regarding Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the Court violated Local Rule 78-230(e) which provides for counter motions when the Court granted Defendants an extension of time to file their Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. See Pl.'s Mot. at 1-2. In this case, Defendants asked for additional time to file their cross motion for summary judgment light of the fact that discovery had not been completed. It is well within the Court's discretion to permit a party an extension of time when good cause has been shown and such a ruling is appropriate pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56(f). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has provided no newly discovered evidence, has failed to show clear error or that the Court rendered a manifestly unjust decision, and has further failed to identify any intervening changes in controlling law that would demand reconsideration of the Court's Order. School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). II. Conclusion and Order The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 44]. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 29, 2010 M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge
K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\08cv1165-Deny Reconsideration.wpd
-2-
08cv1165 MLJ (PCL)
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
