Opinion
2:21-cv-01182-DAD-CKD (PS)
04-21-2023
J.P. PARNELL, Plaintiff, v. WHEELER, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. No. 55)
This matter is before the court on plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and clarification. (Doc. No. 55.)
On July 14, 2022, the previously-assigned district judge issued an order adopting the assigned magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, dismissing two named defendants (Doe and Toure), and denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 36.) On August 18, 2022, the previously-assigned district judge issued an order denying plaintiff's motion to rescind/vacate the court's July 14, 2022 order. (Doc. No. 39.)
The case was reassigned to the undersigned on August 25, 2022. (Doc. No. 40.)
In the pending motion, plaintiff apparently seeks reconsideration of these two orders and clarification as to the status of this case. (Doc. No. 55.) The court has already denied plaintiff's attempt to have the July 14, 2022 order rescinded and explained in its August 18, 2022 that: “the court may reconsider previously decided questions in cases in which there has been an intervening change of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.” (Doc. No. 39) (quoting Leslie Salt Co. v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1393 (9th Cir. 1995)). Plaintiff was also informed that the Local Rules of this court require that any party requesting reconsideration of a court order must state “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.” (Id.) (quoting L.R. 230(j)). Despite this prior explanation provided to plaintiff, in the pending motion, plaintiff does not provide any basis upon which the court should reconsider its prior orders. Accordingly, the pending motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 55) will be denied.
As for the clarification that plaintiff appears to be requesting, the court now confirms that defendant Sgt. Wheeler is the only remaining defendant in this action. Defendants Doe and Toure were dismissed and terminated from this action on July 14, 2022. (Doc. No. 36.) In addition, although plaintiff states that he believes his motion for a preliminary injunction is a priority (see Doc. No. 55 at 5), plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction was already denied by the court in its order dated July 14, 2022.
Accordingly:
1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 55) is denied;
2. The court will not entertain any further motions for reconsideration of the July 14, 2022 order (Doc. No. 36) or the August 18, 2022 order (Doc. No. 39); and
3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.