(PC) Cresci v. Perkins ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLO GUILIANO CRESCI, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00412-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. ) RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S APRIL 7, 2020 ORDER DISREGARDING HIS REQUEST 14 PERKINS, et al., ) FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ) 15 Defendants. ) [ECF No. 21] ) 16 ) ) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Carlo Guiliano Cresci is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on April 28, 2020. 21 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s April 7, 2020 order disregarding his request for judicial 22 notice. Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. 23 On April 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed seven documents entitled “Judicial/Administrative Notice to 24 the Courts” which he contends demonstrate the unsanitary conditions at CSATF. (ECF Nos. 11-17.) 25 On April 7, 2020, the Court disregarded Plaintiff’s documents because they are not subject to judicial 26 notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b). 27 Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 28 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. wOAOe 4: OU VET EO SAN MUO PO er AY Ov 1 || Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing natur 2 || to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of 3 || Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 4 || 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, “ ‘[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 5 || disagreement with the Court’s decision, and ‘recapitulation...’” of that which was already considered 6 || by the court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 □□□ 7 |) Cal. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834, 856 (D N.J. 1992)). 8 || Similarly, Local Rule 230() requires that a party seeking reconsideration show that “new or different 9 || facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior 10 || motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion[.]” 11 In the instant motion, Plaintiff contends that the responses to his “administrative remedies” by 12 || Defendants are necessary to establish his claim of deliberate indifference. (ECF No. 21.) As Plaintif 13 || was previously advised, the documents submitted are not the type that are subject to judicial review 14 || under Rule 201(b). Plaintiff's contention that the documents are relevant to support his claims does 15 ||not make them subject to judicial notice. In addition, Plaintiff's disagreement with the Court’s April 16 || 7, 2020 order does not warrant reconsideration. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to present any new or 17 || difference or circumstances that did not exist upon the filing of his judicial and administrative notices 18 || Rather, Plaintiff demonstrates only his misunderstanding of Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b). 19 || Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court’s April 7, 2020 order is DENIED. 20 21 IS SO ORDERED. A (Fe _ 22 Dated: _ April 29, 2020 OF 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28