Johnson v. Mitchell et al
Filing
67
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 5/27/11 DENYING 63 Motion to Deny Trustee's Intervention filed by Shepard Johnson, and DENYING without prejudice 64 Request for Continuance filed by Shepard Johnson. (Meuleman, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SHEPARD JOHNSON,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
No. CIV S-10-1968 GEB GGH PS
vs.
CHESTER MITCHELL, et al.,
ORDER
14
15
Defendants.
16
/
17
Plaintiff, who proceeds in pro se, filed on May 2, 2011, a motion to deny trustee’s
18
intervention. On May 13, 2011, plaintiff filed a request for continuance in which to oppose three
19
motions to set aside entries of default.
20
On April 25, 2011, this undersigned recommended that the trustee’s motion to
21
intervene be granted, but that the trustee’s motion to dismiss be denied. (Dkt. # 62.) Plaintiff’s
22
motion to intervene cannot be construed as objections to the findings and recommendations as
23
they would be untimely, but is instead construed as a motion for reconsideration before the
24
undersigned.
25
26
Parties seeking reconsideration should demonstrate “new or different facts or
circumstances [which] are claimed to exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what
1
1
other grounds exist for the motion.” E.D. Cal. L. R. 230 (j); see United States v. Alexander, 106
2
F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1997) (citing Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,
3
508 U.S. 951, 113 S.Ct. 2443, 124 L.Ed.2d 661 (1993)) (Reconsideration appropriate for a
4
change in the controlling law, facts, or other circumstances, a need to correct a clear error, or a
5
need to prevent manifest injustice). “After thoughts” or “shifting of ground” are not appropriate
6
bases for reconsideration. Fay Corp. v. BAT Holdings I, Inc., 651 F.Supp. 307, 309 (W.D.
7
Wash.1987), aff’d, 896 F.2d 1227 (9th Cir.1990). The standards “reflect[ ] district courts’
8
concern for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial efficiency.” Costello v.
9
United States Government, 765 F.Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal.1991).
10
Plaintiff has failed to proffer any facts or argument which would demonstrate an
11
appropriate basis for reconsideration. He provides only his own opinion that the undersigned’s
12
ruling on the motion to intervene was tentative. In fact, the tentative wording cited by plaintiff
13
addressed the nature of the protectable interest, which was only one factor in the analysis. Once
14
a protectable interest was found, the analysis proceeded and resulted in a finding that intervention
15
was appropriate. The ruling permitting intervention only granted the trustee standing to argue the
16
motion to dismiss. That ruling was not tentative or conditional. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion
17
will be denied.
18
Plaintiff has also requested a continuance in which to file oppositions to the
19
motions to set aside entries of default, filed January 18, 2011. As previously ordered, these
20
motions will not be entertained until there is a final order either adopting or rejecting the findings
21
and recommendations issued April 25, 2011. See Docket # 58. At the present time, the district
22
judge has not yet ruled on the findings and recommendations. Therefore, plaintiff’s request is
23
not yet ripe and is denied without prejudice to its renewal after the district judge rules on the
24
findings and recommendations.
25
\\\\
26
\\\\
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
2
1. Plaintiff’s motion to deny trustee’s intervention, construed as a motion for
3
4
reconsideration, filed May 12, 2011, (dkt. # 63), is denied.
2. Plaintiff’s request for a continuance to file oppositions to the motions to set
5
aside entries of default, filed May 13, 2011, (dkt. # 64), is denied without prejudice.
6
DATED: 05/27/2011
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
7
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
GGH:076/Johnson1968.rec.wpd
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
]]>
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?
