(PC) Parnell v. Wheeler ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 J.P. PARNELL, No. 2:21-cv-01182-DAD-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 WHEELER, (Doc. No. 55) 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and clarification. 18 (Doc. No. 55.) 19 On July 14, 2022, the previously-assigned district judge issued an order adopting the 20 assigned magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, dismissing two named defendants 21 (Doe and Toure), and denying plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 36.) On 22 August 18, 2022, the previously-assigned district judge issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion 23 to rescind/vacate the court’s July 14, 2022 order.1 (Doc. No. 39.) 24 In the pending motion, plaintiff apparently seeks reconsideration of these two orders and 25 clarification as to the status of this case. (Doc. No. 55.) The court has already denied plaintiff’s 26 attempt to have the July 14, 2022 order rescinded and explained in its August 18, 2022 that: “the 27 28 1 The case was reassigned to the undersigned on August 25, 2022. (Doc. No. 40.) 1 | court may reconsider previously decided questions in cases in which there has been an 2 | intervening change of controlling authority, new evidence has surfaced, or the previous 3 | disposition was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” (Doc. No. 39) (quoting 4 | Leslie Salt Co. v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1393 (9th Cir. 1995)). Plaintiff was also informed 5 | that the Local Rules of this court require that any party requesting reconsideration of a court order 6 | must state “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist 7 | or were not shown... or what other grounds exist for the motion” and “why the facts or 8 || circumstances were not shown.” (/d.) (quoting L.R. 230(j)). Despite this prior explanation 9 | provided to plaintiff, in the pending motion, plaintiff does not provide any basis upon which the 10 court should reconsider its prior orders. Accordingly, the pending motion for reconsideration 11 | (Doc. No. 55) will be denied. 12 As for the clarification that plaintiff appears to be requesting, the court now confirms that 13 | defendant Sgt. Wheeler is the only remaining defendant in this action. Defendants Doe and Toure 14 | were dismissed and terminated from this action on July 14, 2022. (Doc. No. 36.) In addition, 15 | although plaintiff states that he believes his motion for a preliminary injunction is a priority (see 16 | Doc. No. 55 at 5), plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction was already denied by the court 17 | inits order dated July 14, 2022. 18 Accordingly: 19 1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 55) is denied; 20 2. The court will not entertain any further motions for reconsideration of the July 14, 21 2022 order (Doc. No. 36) or the August 18, 2022 order (Doc. No. 39); and 22 3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. *" Dated: _ April 21, 2023 Da A. 2, el 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28