Opinion
2:21-cv-02078-DJC-CKD P
11-29-2023
KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI, Plaintiff, v. ABDULBASET ABDULGADER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 14, 2023, plaintiff constructively filed a motion to reconsider the magistrate judge's order granting defendants' motion to opt out of Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”). In the motion, plaintiff submits that defendants did not take the court's ADR order seriously because they only had a two minute conversation over the phone concerning plaintiff's settlement demand. Plaintiff argues the merits of his claims and requests an expedited resolution of his case.
Local Rule 230(j)(3) requires that any motion to reconsider state “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion....”
The court's order referring this matter to ADR specifically permitted defendants to file a motion to opt out “if after investigating plaintiff's claims and speaking with plaintiff, and after conferring with defense counsel's supervisor, defense counsel in good faith finds that a settlement conference would be a waste of resources....” ECF No. 45 at 2. That is what happened in the present case. Therefore, the undersigned does not find that plaintiff has presented any new or different facts or circumstances that justify granting his motion to reconsider.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to reconsider (ECF No. 48) is denied.