(PC) Parnell v. Wheeler

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 J.P. Parnell, No. 2:21-cv-01182-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Wheeler, et al., 1S Defendants.

17 Plaintiff J.P. Parnell, who is incarcerated and proceeding without an attorney, moves to | rescind or vacate an order by the previously assigned district judge. See Mot. Vacate, ECF No. | 38. That previous order adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, | dismissed the claims against two defendants, declined to impose a preliminary injunction, and | denied reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s decision not to appoint counsel. See F&Rs, ECF | No. 24; Order Adopting F&Rs, ECF No. 36.

23 “As long as a district court has jurisdiction over the case, then it possesses the inherent | procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to | be sufficient.” City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 | (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Melancon v. Texaco, Inc., 659 F.2d 551, 553 (Sth | Cir. 1981)). “Thus, the court may reconsider previously decided questions in cases in which there | has been an intervening change of controlling authority, new evidence has surfaced, or the | previous disposition was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” Leslie Salt Co. | v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1393 (9th Cir. 1995). Under this court’s local rules, any request to | reconsider must explain “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which | did not exist or were not shown ... or what other grounds exist for the motion” and “why the | facts or circumstances were not shown.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j)(3)H(4).

6 Parnell relies primarily on information in his pending request for judicial notice. See Mot.

7 | Vacate at 2-4; Req. J. Notice, ECF No. 35. The request for judicial notice concerns a rules | violation report and a housing decision. See Req. J. Notice at 1-2. The court cannot take judicial | notice of these developments because they are not “generally known within the trial court’s | territorial jurisdiction” and cannot “be accurately and readily determined from sources whose | accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(1)(2). The motion to vacate | (ECF No. 38) and related request for judicial notice (ECF No. 35) are thus denied. This matter is | referred again to the assigned magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings.

14 IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 DATED: August 18, 2022.

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE