(PC) Parnell v. Wheeler

Opinion

J.P. Parnell, No. 2:21-cv-01182-KJM-CKD Plaintiff, ORDER v. Wheeler, et al., 1S Defendants. Plaintiff J.P. Parnell, who is incarcerated and proceeding without an attorney, moves to rescind or vacate an order by the previously assigned district judge. See Mot. Vacate, ECF No. 38. That previous order adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, dismissed the claims against two defendants, declined to impose a preliminary injunction, and denied reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s decision not to appoint counsel. See F&Rs, ECF No. 24; Order Adopting F&Rs, ECF No. 36. “As long as a district court has jurisdiction over the case, then it possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient.” City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Melancon v. Texaco, Inc., 659 F.2d 551, 553 (Sth Cir. 1981)). “Thus, the court may reconsider previously decided questions in cases in which there has been an intervening change of controlling authority, new evidence has surfaced, or the

previous disposition was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” Leslie Salt Co. v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1393 (9th Cir. 1995). Under this court’s local rules, any request to reconsider must explain “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown ... or what other grounds exist for the motion” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j)(3)H(4). Parnell relies primarily on information in his pending request for judicial notice. See Mot. Vacate at 2-4; Req. J. Notice, ECF No. 35. The request for judicial notice concerns a rules violation report and a housing decision. See Req. J. Notice at 1-2. The court cannot take judicial notice of these developments because they are not “generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction” and cannot “be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(1)(2). The motion to vacate (ECF No. 38) and related request for judicial notice (ECF No. 35) are thus denied. This matter is referred again to the assigned magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. DATED: August 18, 2022. CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE