Opinion
No. 2:12-cv-01202 MCE KJN
2013-09-20
LEON E. MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. NANGALAMA et. al., Defendants.
ORDER
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's second Motion to Reconsider a Court Order. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 13, 2013, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations which included revoking Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status. (ECF No. 25.) On May 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider asking the Court to review its May 13 Order, which the Court denied on August 29, 2013. (ECF Nos. 26 and 27.) On September 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed another Motion to Reconsider. (ECF No. 28.) In it, Plaintiff alleges that in a contemporaneous prisoner civil rights case he filed, Judge Karlton concluded that Plaintiff can proceed in forma pauperis. Morris v. Daly, No 12-cv-2845 (E.D. Cal. filed Nov. 20, 2012). A party seeking reconsideration must set out the material facts and circumstances that were not shown at the prior motion. Local Rule 230(j). Here, Judge Karlton reached a different decision after reviewing similar facts, but his disagreement with the Court is not a material fact that warrants the Court to reconsider its previous decision. "The doctrine of stare decisis does not compel one district court judge to follow the decision of another." In re Silverman 616 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Starbuck v. City and County of San Francisco, 556 F.2d 450, 457 (9th Cir.1977). For the reasons described above, Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider is DENIED. (ECF No. 28.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT