From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Patterson

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 14, 2022
2:22-cv-01328-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-01328-TLN-AC

10-14-2022

CYMEYON HILL, Plaintiff, v. S. PATTERSON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

TROY L. NUNLEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a motion to reconsider the September 20, 2022 Order denying his motions to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 11.)

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 does not present any new or different facts or circumstances.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 11) is DENIED.


Summaries of

Hill v. Patterson

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 14, 2022
2:22-cv-01328-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2022)
Case details for

Hill v. Patterson

Case Details

Full title:CYMEYON HILL, Plaintiff, v. S. PATTERSON, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 14, 2022

Citations

2:22-cv-01328-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2022)