Steve J.Noble v. Gonzalez

Filing 47

ORDER DENYING 46 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/16/13. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

15

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LT. V. J. GONZALEZ,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
____________________________________)

16

I.

11
12
13
14

STEVEN JOSEPH NOBLE IV,

1:07-cv-01111-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 46.)

BACKGROUND

17

Steven Joseph Noble IV ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this

19

action on July 31, 2007. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint against

20

defendant Lieutenant V. J. Gonzalez (“Defendant”), for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

21

(Doc. 16.)

22

On January 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order of March

23

8, 2012, which denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as moot. (Doc. 46.)

24

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

25

A.

26

Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies relief.

27

Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be

28

1

Legal Standard

1

utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th

2

Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both

3

injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

4

In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or

5

different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such

6

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

7

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless

8

the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an

9

intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co.,

10

571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party

11

seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and

12

recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S.

13

v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).

14

B.

15

Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the Court’s order of March 8, 2012, which adopted in part

16

the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, dismissed Plaintiff’s due process claim without

17

leave to amend, denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as moot, and referred the case back

18

to the Magistrate Judge to screen the First Amended Complaint for a retaliation claim. (Doc. 33.)

19

Plaintiff argues it was unnecessary to re-screen the First Amended Complaint, because the Court had

20

already found a retaliation claim in its screening order of November 24, 2009, and the Court should not

21

have found Defendant’s motion for summary judgment moot merely because the due process claim was

22

dismissed. Plaintiff asserts that he “spent countless hours and hundreds of dollars in preparing, filing

23

and serving [his] ‘Opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment,’” and the Court should

24

consider his arguments and rule on the merits of the motion for summary judgment. (Motion, Doc. 46

25

at 5¶15.)

26

///

27

///

28

Plaintiff’s Motion

2

1

C.

2

Plaintiff’s argument is not persuasive. There is no evidence in the Court’s order of November

3

24, 2009 that the Court found the First Amended Complaint stated a claim for retaliation. Plaintiff

4

contends that the Court implied in the order that Plaintiff stated a claim for retaliation by citing Austin

5

v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004). (Doc. 16 at 1:19-22.) However, the Court did not

6

state, and did not intend to imply by citing Austin, that the Court had found a claim for retaliation. There

7

is no evidence in subsequent court proceedings indicating that the Court had found a retaliation claim;

8

in fact, the Court indicated in subsequent orders that the case only proceeded on Plaintiff’s due process

9

claim. (Doc. 28 at 1:24-26; Doc. 29 at 1:20-22.)

Discussion

10

Based on these facts, it would be a waste of judicial resources for the Court to consider the

11

merits of Defendant’s prior motion for summary judgment at this stage of the proceedings. This case

12

now proceeds only on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment did

13

not address a claim for retaliation. (Doc. 15 ¶C; Doc. 24.) Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Court

14

committed clear error, or presented the Court with new information of a strongly convincing nature, to

15

induce the Court to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration shall be denied.

16

III.

17

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration,

18

filed on January 14, 2013, is DENIED.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

January 16, 2013

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
B9ed48
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3