Jacobs v. Sullivan et al

Filing 151

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 149 150 Motions for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 03/02/2015. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE E. JACOBS IV,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
ALEXANDER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:05-cv-01625-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR RECONSIDERATION
[ECF Nos. 149, 150]

Plaintiff George Jacobs is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the

19

jurisdiction of the United States magistrate judge. Local Rule 302.

20
21
22

On February 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed two separate, but similar, motions for reconsideration of
the Court’s January 23, 2015, order lifting the stay of trial-setting proceedings.
Because Defendant Crotty filed bankruptcy, on June 23, 2011, the Court stayed the case

23

against Defendant Crotty pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), pending resolution of the bankruptcy

24

proceedings. (ECF No. 58.) On April 24, 2013, the Court stayed trial-setting proceedings in this

25

action pending resolution of Defendant Crotty’s bankruptcy proceedings. (ECF No. 118.)

26
27

On January 23, 2015, the Court lifted the stay of the trial-setting proceedings, but left in place
the stay of proceedings as to Defendant Crotty pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

28
1

1

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1)

2

mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due

3

diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party;

4

(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief.

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc, 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

6

(9th Cir. 1993).

7

Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently or freely granted; they are not a substitute

8

for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. See Twentieth Century-Fox Film

9

Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). “‘[T]he major grounds that justify

10

reconsideration involve an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or

11

the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians

12

v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433

13

F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)).

14

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred by “prejudicially

15

dismissing Defendant Crotty from this action.” Plaintiff is mistaken. The Court did not dismiss

16

Defendant Crotty from the action; rather, the Court lifted the stay of the entire proceedings and

17

allowed the action to proceed to trial against Defendants Nelson, Watson, Chan, McGregor,

18

Alexander, Carrasco, Blankenship, Jobb, Granillo, Johnson, and Salazar aka Adams for violation of

19

Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment. The Court specifically stated “[t]he stay of

20

proceedings in this case against Defendant Crotty pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), imposed on June 23,

21

2011, remains in place[.]” (ECF No. 141, Order at 3:14-15.) Furthermore, there is no merit to

22

Plaintiff’s claim that the automatic stay of the proceedings applies with equal force to all other

23

Defendants in this action, and Defendants are entitled to proceed to trial on the claims. See, e.g., In re

24

Miller, 262 B.R. 499, 503, n.6 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Seiko v. Epson Corp. v. Nu-Kote International,

25

Inc., 190 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“It is clearly established that the automatic stay does not

26

apply to non-bankrupt co-defendants of a debtor ‘even if they are in a similar legal or factual nexus

27

with the debtor.’”); Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n v. Butler, 803 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1986) (“It is

28

well-established that stays pursuant to § 362(a) are limited to debtors and do not encompass non2

1

bankrupt co-defendants.”); Marcus, Stowell & Beye Government Securities, Inc. v. Jefferson

2

Investment Corp., 797 F.2d 227, 230 n. 4 (5th Cir. 1986) (“The well-established rule is that an

3

automatic stay of judicial proceedings against one defendant does not apply to proceedings against

4

co-defendants.”).
Having reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration, Plaintiff provides no

5
6

grounds for reconsideration beyond asserting that the Court erred. For the reasons explained above,

7

reconsideration is not warranted, and Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 2, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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