Barnett v. Norman, et al.

Filing 125

ORDER DENYING 114 , 115 , 117 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 10/24/2011. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 TROAS V. BARNETT, 10 CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01022-GBC (PC) Plaintiff, 11 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER v. (Docs. 114, 115, 117) 12 DAVID NORMAN, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 / 16 I. Procedural History 17 Plaintiff Troas V. Barnett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint 19 commencing this action on August 9, 2005. (Doc. 1). On June 25, 2011, the Court denied the 20 following motions: 1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants’ personnel records (Doc. 105); 2) 21 Plaintiff’s motion to seal photographs (Doc. 106); and 3) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to dispose 22 inmate witnesses (Doc. 107). On July 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to: 1) reconsider the Court’s 23 denial of Plaintiff’s motion to file photographs under seal in addition to address a new request to 24 consider filing Plaintiff’s MRIs under seal (Doc. 114); 2) reconsider the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s 25 motion for leave to dispose inmate witnesses (Doc. 115); and 3) reconsider the Court’s denial of 26 Plaintiff’s motion to compel personnel files (Doc. 117). On August 4, 2011, Defendants filed 27 oppositions to Plaintiff’s three motions for reconsideration. (Docs. 120, 121, 122). 28 1 1 II. Standard Governing Motions for Reconsideration 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 3 district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on 4 grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse 5 party, . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. 6 P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, in any event “not 7 more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id. 8 Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin 9 Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) 10 (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce 11 the court to reverse its prior decision. See e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 12 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 13 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988). The Ninth Circuit has stated that “[c]lause 14 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding clauses.’” Corex Corp. v. 15 United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981); accord LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser 16 Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). 17 ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id. When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j)(3) 18 & (4) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which 19 did not exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of 20 the prior motion.” 21 A. 22 In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff repeats arguments made in his original motion that 23 he fears Defendants will destroy his evidence. (Docs. 106, 114). Plaintiff also adds a new argument 24 requesting the placement of his MRIs under seal. (Doc. 114). Plaintiff has not met his burden under 25 60(b) to entitle him reconsideration of the Court’s order filed on June 24, 2011 (Doc. 106). Accordingly, “the clause is reserved for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to File Photographs Under Seal 26 B. 27 In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff reiterates that he is indigent and unable to pay the 28 costs associated with deposing inmate witnesses. (Doc. 115). Plaintiff has not presented any new Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Dispose Inmate Witnesses 2 1 or compelling arguments to warrant granting Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 2 order filed on June 24, 2011 (Doc. 107) under Rule 60(b). 3 C. 4 In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff presents arguments previously raised and presents 5 additional arguments as to why the Court should compel Defendants to produce personnel files. 6 (Doc. 117). However, in the Court’s original order, the Court explained the proper procedure is to 7 first request discovery documents from the Defendants. (Doc. 105). As the Court has recently 8 granted Plaintiff’s motion for extension of discovery in order to follow to proper discovery procedure 9 in requesting personnel files first from the Defendants and since Plaintiff fails to meet his burden to 10 prevail in his rule 60(b) motion, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying 11 Plaintiff’s motion to compel personnel files, is denied. (Doc. 117). Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Compel Personnel Files 12 13 III. 14 15 Conclusion and Order Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration filed on July 22, 2011, are HEREBY DENIED. (Docs. 114, 115, 117). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: 0jh02o October 24, 2011 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?