Opinion
2:17-cv-1340 MCE AC P
08-25-2021
LEON HARDIN, Plaintiff, v. D. BOUGHMAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for reconsideration of the July 15, 2021, Order denying his requests to withdraw from the settlement agreement and re-open the case. ECF No. 49.
Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4). Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration merely repeats the same arguments that were raised in his original motion to withdraw from the settlement agreement and objections.
To the extent plaintiff now attempts to claim that the parties agreed to a payment of $69, 500.00 and that the signed settlement agreement has been altered to show that the agreement was for $9, 500.00 and that he agreed to voluntarily dismissed two other cases, ECF No. 49 at 8, the November 4, 2019 recording of the terms of the settlement conference clearly reflect that plaintiff agreed to settle the case for $9, 500.00 and to dismiss his two other cases.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 49, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.