Woodfill

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:19-cv-2118 MCE KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 D. WOODFILL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff moves the court to reconsider its decision of September 3, 2020 order dismissing 18 plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against defendant Woodfill. (ECF No. 26.) 19 Plaintiff asserts that he stated a retaliation claim against defendant because Woodfill “acted in 20 vengeance when he told plaintiff you are ‘piece of shit’ is clear” that Woodfill referred to 21 plaintiff’s conviction. (ECF No. 30 at 1.) 22 Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, Frito– 23 Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981), considerations of 24 judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party 25 seeking reconsideration of a district court’s order must brief the “new or different facts or 26 circumstances [which] were not shown upon such…