JAYNE v. BOSENKO, 2:08-cv-2767-TLN-EFB P. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20141020524
Visitors: 41
Filed: Oct. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 17, 2014
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On August 22, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 158. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the August 22, 2014 order. ECF No. 162. 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
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On August 22, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 158. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the August 22, 2014 order. ECF No. 162. 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 n..
More
ORDER
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 22, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 158. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the August 22, 2014 order. ECF No. 162.
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," and "why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion." E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(j)(3)-(4).
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied because it does not describe new or different facts that plaintiff could not have shown with his prior motion or that were unavailable to this court in denying the motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying his request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 162) is denied.
Source: Leagle
