Frank Lee Johnson v. Sanjay Agarwal, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 12, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02891
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK LEE JOHNSON, No. 2:24-cv-2891 DJC AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SANJAY AGARWAL, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a letter with the Court claiming that on October 31, 2025, the 18 undersigned denied his motion for injunctive relief without providing an explanation 19 for the denial. ECF No. 56 at 1. The letter provides a short summary of plaintiff’s 20 medical conditions and alleged inadequate medical treatment, and asks that his 21 “pulmonary specialist expert [ ] be able to continue having his way.” Id. at 1-4. The 22 request is the same as one of his requests in the motion for transfer for medical care, 23 which this Court construed as a motion for preliminary injunction and denied. ECF 24 No. 40 at 3 (plaintiff’s motion seeking, among other things, an order that defendants 25 provide him with treatment as ordered in his medical record by several specialists); 26 ECF No. 42 at 6-8; ECF No. 55 at 2. Because plaintiff is seeking the same relief sought 27 in the most recent motion for preliminary injunction, which the Court has already 28 denied, the Court construes plaintiff’s letter as a motion for reconsideration of the 1 undersigned’s October 31, 2025, order. ECF No. 55. 2 Reconsideration of prior orders may be appropriate where the court is 3 presented with newly discovered evidence, has committed clear error, or there has 4 been an intervening change in the controlling law. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. 5 Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). A party seeking 6 reconsideration must do more than disagree with the court’s decision or recapitulate 7 that which the court has previously considered. United States v. Westlands Water 8 District, 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Nor can a reconsideration 9 motion “be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they 10 could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 571 11 F.3d at 880. Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what 12 new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were 13 not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; 14 and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior 15 motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4). 16 Plaintiff has not presented any cognizable grounds for reconsideration. 17 Instead, he seeks a different outcome and an explanation for the outcome. However, 18 as noted above, plaintiff must do more than disagree with the court’s decision or 19 restate what has already been considered. 20 Additionally, contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, the undersigned did provide an 21 explanation for denying his motion. See ECF Nos. 42, 55. The undersign wrote that it 22 “conducted a de novo review of this case” and after “careful[] review of the entire file,” 23 found that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations on plaintiff’s motion 24 for preliminary injunction was “supported by the record and by proper analysis.” The 25 undersigned ordered that the findings and recommendations be adopted in full. ECF 26 No. 55 at 2. The July 7, 2025, findings and recommendations, in turn, clearly stated 27 the basis for denying plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 42 at 6-7. The Magistrate Judge 28 explained that because it was unclear whether plaintiff would seek to file a third 1 | amended complaint (“TAC”) or proceed with the second amended complaint (“SAC”), 2 | the Court could not assess the likelihood of success of plaintiff's claims. Id. at 6. The 3 | magistrate judge also found that because the motion did not identify whose conduct 4 | plaintiff seeks to enjoin, the court could not determine whether it has jurisdiction over 5 | these individuals. Id. Lastly, because plaintiff sought preliminary injunctive relief, but 6 | did not address the applicable four-factor test, the court advised him “that he should 7 | refrain from filing multiple requests or motions for immediate relief unless he can 8 | establish a preliminary injunction is warranted under the Ninth Circuit's four-factor test 9 | and can provide evidence that absent a preliminary injunction, while the case 10 | proceeds through litigation, plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm.” Id. (citing Stormans, 11 | Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. 12 | Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008))). 13 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's letter (ECF 14 | No. 56) is construed as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s October 31, 2025, 15 | order (ECF No. 55) and is DENIED. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 | Dated: _ January 9, 2026 “Daal A CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 | john2891.850,jo 24 25 26 27 28