(PC) Williams v. Felker et al, No. 2:2008cv00878 - Document 54 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/3/10 ORDERING that upon reconsideration the court's 44 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations are AFFIRMED. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 28 days of the date of this order. (Owen, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Williams v. Felker et al Doc. 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KIRK DOUGLAS WILLIAMS, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 No. CIV S-08-0878 LKK GGH P T. FELKER, et al., 14 Defendants. ORDER 15 16 / Attached to plaintiff’s December 23, 2009, objections to the findings and 17 recommendations is a request for reconsideration of the September 30, 2009, order adopting the 18 April 2, 2009, findings and recommendations in part and granting plaintiff thirty days to file an 19 amended complaint as to his First Amendment claim. The magistrate judge found the motion for 20 reconsideration to be timely filed. 21 22 Standards For Motions To Reconsider Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, 23 Frito-Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981), 24 considerations of judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus Local Rule 78-230(k) 25 requires that a party seeking reconsideration of a district court's order must brief the “new or 26 different facts or circumstances [which] 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 Dockets.Justia.com 1 provides that the decisions on legal issues made in a case “should be followed unless there is 2 substantially different evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly 3 erroneous and would result in injustice.” Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 4 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. 5 denied, 475 U.S. 1064 (1986). 6 Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the 7 alteration or amendment of a judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle 8 permitting the unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present 9 “contentions which might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United 10 States, 765 F.Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D.Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 11 (7th Cir. 1986); Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991). 12 These holdings “reflect[] district courts' concerns for preserving dwindling resources and 13 promoting judicial efficiency.” Costello, 765 F.Supp. at 1009. 14 15 16 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and finds it to be without merit. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, this court's 17 order of September 30, 2009, is affirmed; plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 18 twenty-eight days of the date of this order. 19 DATED: March 3, 2010. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
