ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 116

JAMES DONATO, District Judge.

On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff James Ellis Johnson, who is proceeding pro se, filed a Motion Request for Reconsideration of the Court Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Reassign the Case to Judge Chen. Dkt. No. 116. Plaintiff's motion requests the Court, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(a), to reconsider its May 28, 2014 order, (Dkt. No. 114), which denied Plaintiff's request to have this case returned to Judge Chen after it was randomly reassigned to this Court under General Order 44.

Civil Local Rule 7-9 requires parties to seek permission from the court prior to filing a motion for reconsideration. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). In a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must show: (1) "a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought;" (2) "[t]he emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order;" or (3) "manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order." Civ. L.R. 7-9(b).

Even when leave to file is granted, motions for reconsideration serve a "very limited purpose" and are appropriate "only to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Jackson-Shaw Partners No. 46, Ltd., 850 F.Supp. 839, 845 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (citation omitted). A motion for reconsideration may not be brought "merely because Plaintiff is unhappy with the judgment . . . or because he disagrees with the ultimate decision." Bridgeman v. Peralta, No. 11-2132 WQH, 2011 WL 5830427, at *1 (S.D. Nov. 18, 2011).

As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not asked this Court for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Even though Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is required to follow the Local Rules of this District. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(a) ("A person representing him or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules, as well as by all applicable local rules."). For this reason alone, the motion may be denied as procedurally improper. See Doherty v. City of Alameda, No. 09-4961-EDL, 2010 WL 1526135, at *1 (N.D. Cal. April 14, 2010).

Even if the Court were to construe Plaintiff's motion as one for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, it does not meet the showing required by Local Rule 7-9. Plaintiff does not point to a subsequent change in fact or law, or a failure by the Court to consider facts or arguments previously presented. Instead, Plaintiff's motion repeats arguments made in his initial motion and raises a number of new issues that have no bearing on the legal question examined in the Court's order, (Dkt. No. 114), including a discovery dispute regarding Plaintiff's medical records, and Plaintiff's objections to certain aspects of the May 28, 2014 hearing on Defendants' motions to dismiss.

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.