1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ISMAEL H. PADILLA, Case No. 24-cv-04022-JSW

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING

9 v. RECONSIDERATION

10 LUMPKIN, DIRECTOR OF TEXAS Re: Dkt. No. 6 PRISON SYSTEM, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 This pro se civil case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern 13 District of Texas. He has filed a motion objecting to the transfer, which the Court has construed 14 as a motion for reconsideration of the transfer order. 15 Where the court's ruling has not resulted in a final judgment or order, reconsideration of 16 the ruling may be sought under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which 17 provides that any order which does not terminate the action is subject to revision at any time 18 before the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the 19 district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the 20 initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” 21 School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 22 In the Northern District of California, no motion for reconsideration may be brought 23 without leave of court. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, the moving party must 24 specifically show: (1) that at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law 25 exists from that which was presented to the court before entry of the interlocutory order for which 26 the reconsideration is sought, and that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying 27 for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or (2) the 1 emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or (3) a 2 || manifest failure by the court to consider material facts which were presented to the court before 3 such interlocutory order. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b). 4 Plaintiff asserts there is a “conspiracy” between the federal courts and the Texas state 5 courts to “doctor[]” his arrest record to indicate he had been arrested on marijuana charges at age 6 18 instead of age 17. These allegations are not relevant to the venue and personal jurisdiction 7 considerations underlying the transfer order, nor do they warrant reconsideration. Plaintiff also 8 || asserts “a civil action may be filed in any U.S. District Court.” As explained in the transfer order, 9 || however, the district court in which a civil action may be filed is circumscribed by the venue 10 provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 11 A Plaintiff has not shown grounds for reconsideration under Rule 54 or Civil Local Rule 7- 12 9, his motion is DENIED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: September 4, 2024 15 } A 16 XK] L Nt 5 7 y HERI S WHITE United{States Pistrict Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28