(PC) Taylor v. Koubong

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01871
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WAYNE TAYLOR, No. 2:24-cv-01871-TLN-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S.KOUBONG, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed objections to orders filed by this 19 Court on September 6, 2024, and September 17, 2024. (ECF No. 22.) This Court construes 20 Plaintiff’s objections to these orders as requests for reconsideration. 21 Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the Court, Frito- 22 Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981), considerations of 23 judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party 24 seeking reconsideration of a district court’s order must brief the “new or different facts or 25 circumstances [which] were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for 26 the motion.” Id. The rule derives from the “law of the case” doctrine which provides that the 27 decisions on legal issues made in a case “should be followed unless there is substantially different 28 evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would 1 result in injustice.” Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); 2 see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1064 3 (1986). 4 In the order filed September 6, 2024, this Court adopted the findings and 5 recommendations filed July 17, 2024, recommending denial of Plaintiff’s second motion for 6 preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 19.) The September 6, 2024, 7 order stated that this Court considered Plaintiff’s objections to the July 17, 2024, findings and 8 recommendations. (Id.) In the pending request for reconsideration, Plaintiff claims that in the 9 September 6, 2024, order, this Court failed to rule on Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and 10 recommendations filed July 17, 2024. (ECF No. 22 at 1.) Plaintiff claims this Court should have 11 either sustained or overruled Plaintiff’s objections to the July 17, 2024, findings and 12 recommendations. (Id.) This argument is without merit as this Court considered Plaintiff’s 13 objections to the July 17, 2024, findings and recommendations, as stated in the September 6, 14 2024, order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the September 6, 2024, order 15 is DENIED. 16 In the order filed September 17, 2024, this Court construed Plaintiff’s objections to the 17 magistrate judge’s order filed July 16, 2024, denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of 18 counsel as a request for reconsideration of the July 16, 2024, order. (ECF No. 20.) This Court 19 denied Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration. (Id.) In the pending request for reconsideration, 20 Plaintiff claims that in the order filed September 17, 2024, this Court wrongly construed 21 Plaintiff’s objections to the July 16, 2024 order as a request for reconsideration. (ECF No. 22 at 22 2.) This argument is without merit. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the 23 September 17, 2024 order is DENIED. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 22), 25 construed as requests for reconsiderations of the orders filed September 6, 2024, and September 26 17, 2024, are DENIED. 27 // 28 // 1 | Date: January 7, 2025 2 | 4 5 TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28