(PC) Mundy v. Cavello

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 STANLEY W. MUNDY, No. 2:23-cv-0061 WBS AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PATRICK CAVELLO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of this court’s August 5, 2025, order adopting the 17 magistrate judge’s May 5, 2025, findings and recommendations, and to grant him fifteen days or 18 less to file objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. ECF No. 41. 19 Plaintiff claims that he believed the July 7, 2025, deadline to file objections was stayed 20 when the court issued a post-screening order referring the case to Alternative Dispute Resolution 21 (“ADR”), staying the case, and stating that “[e]xcept as provided herein or by subsequent court 22 order, no other pleading or other documents may be filed in this case during the stay of this 23 action.” See ECF No. 41 at 2 (citing ECF No. 36). He also appears to assert that because his case 24 was split into three separate lawsuits, he is litigating multiple complex cases at once and needs 25 more time to file objections. Id. Plaintiff has also filed his belated objections to the magistrate 26 judge’s May 5, 2025, order. ECF No. 44. 27 Reconsideration of prior orders may be appropriate where the court is presented with 28 1 | newly discovered evidence, has committed clear error, or there has been an intervening change in 2 | the controlling law. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 3 | 880 (9th Cir. 2009). A party seeking reconsideration must do more than disagree with the court’s 4 | decision or recapitulate that which the court has previously considered. United States v. 5 | Westlands Water District, 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Nor can a reconsideration 6 | motion “be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could 7 || reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 571 F.3d at 880. 8 | Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or different facts or 9 | circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, 10 | or what other grounds exist for the motion; and . .. why the facts or circumstances were not 11 || shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230G)(3)-(4). 12 Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the August 5, 2025, order does not present any 13 || cognizable grounds for reconsideration and instead merely seeks more time to file objections. 14 | Evenif the court considers plaintiff's belated objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and 15 | recommendations, plaintiff's arguments fail to establish a basis for reconsideration. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF 17 | No. 41) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 18 | Dated: August 22, 2025 J, CZ , . ak. AY / UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28