Williams v. Adams et al

Filing 148

ORDER OVERRULING Objections and DENYING 142 Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/12/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

MARCUS R. WILLIAMS,

10

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS PC

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS
AND DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

ADAMS, et al.,

13

(Doc. 142)
Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff, Marcus R. Williams (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

16

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 2, 2013,

17

Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment entered based on Defendants’ motion for

18

summary judgment being granted. (Doc. 142.) Plaintiff’s motion is construed as a request for

19

reconsideration.

20

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order

21

for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy

22

to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .”

23

exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and

24

citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond

25

his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j)

26

requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what new or different facts or circumstances are

27

claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other

28

grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of
1

1
2

the prior motion.”
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

3

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

4

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to

5

raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been

6

raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571

7

F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in

8

original).

9

Plaintiff has not shown any new or different facts or circumstances, newly discovered

10

evidence, commission of clear error, or an intervening change of law to support his motion.

11

Plaintiff makes reference to “recent case law which clearly show that CDCR did enter into a

12

contractual agreement to change prison policy” and “said case law (Walker v. Gomez) indicates

13

that CDCR/Defendants (as named) did have access to particular prison policy, regulations, rules,

14

codes, etc, as described and requested by Plaintiff.” Doc. 142, 8-9. The court is not certain which

15

case Plaintiff is referring to. Possibilities include Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969 (9th Cir.

16

2004), Walker v. Gomez, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (S.D. Cal. 2009), and Walker v. Cal. Dep’t of

17

Corr., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22406 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2012). While the Southern District case

18

did involve a settlement agreement, the court is not sure how that settlement would apply in this

19

case. The language Plaintiff uses suggests that he is not relying on the case for a change in law

20

but rather to show that Defendants have certain documents in their possession that Plaintiff wants

21

access to. These discovery issues have already been ruled upon. In fact, Plaintiff repeatedly cites

22

to documents he submitted in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff

23

also fails to present any arguments and/or authority to show that this Court erred in granting

24

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, or that any extraordinary circumstances exist so as to

25

justify the relief he seeks. Neither Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s ruling, nor his

26

lament over what he now deems to be Defendants’ insufficient responses to discovery, are

27

sufficient grounds for reconsideration.

28

Having carefully considered this matter, the Court finds its Order granting Defendants’
2

1

motion for summary judgment and subsequent entry of judgment to be supported by the record

2

and proper analysis.

3

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for relief of judgment, filed January 2, 2013 (Doc. 142),

4

is HEREBY DENIED.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated:
0m8i78

February 12, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3