Benyamini v. Anderson et al

Filing 29

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Reopen Case, With Prejudice (Doc. 26 ), signed by Senior Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 9/6/2011. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT BENYAMINI, 12 1:07-cv-01596-OWW-GSA-PC Plaintiff, 13 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN CASE, WITH PREJUDICE (Doc. 26.) vs. 14 PAM ANDERSON, et al., 15 Defendants. / 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Robert Benyamini (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on November 2, 2007. (Doc. 1.) On 20 July 1, 2008, the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim and granted Plaintiff 21 leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 8.) This action was dismissed, with prejudice, on May 22 13, 2009, for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint, and 23 for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. 24 25 On July 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the case. (Doc. 26.) II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 26 Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies 27 relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice 28 and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 1 1 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must 2 demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks 3 and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff 4 to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or 5 were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 6 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 7 unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 8 there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma 9 GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted, 10 and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s 11 decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its 12 decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 13 Plaintiff first argues that the case should be reopened because he was unable to file an 14 amended complaint, as ordered by the Court, due to lack of access to his property at the prison. 15 Plaintiff was granted sufficient time and opportunity to file the amended complaint. On July 1, 2008, 16 the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, and ordered 17 him to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 8.) For more than eight months, Plaintiff sought and was 18 granted numerous extensions of time to file the amended complaint. On March 26, 2009, the Court 19 issued an order granting Plaintiff a final thirty-day extension of time to file the amended complaint. 20 (Doc. 23.) More than fifty days passed, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order or 21 otherwise respond to the order. Therefore, on May 13, 2009, the case was dismissed. 22 Plaintiff also disagrees with the Court’s ruling that his Complaint failed to state a claim and 23 argues that he should not have been required to amend the Complaint. However, Plaintiff does not 24 offer any evidence that the Court’s ruling was based on erroneous facts or law. The Court’s 25 Screening Order of July 1, 2008, found that Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on November 2, 2007, failed 26 to state any claims upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff’s Complaint was based 27 on his claims for inadequate medical care and violation of his rights to equal protection. Plaintiff 28 claimed that while he was housed in the Stanislaus County Jails, his medical needs were disregarded 2 1 on a number of occasions; however, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that 2 defendants acted with deliberate indifference, and Plaintiff’s disagreement with the assessment and 3 treatment of his injuries was insufficient to support a claim under section 1983. (Id. at 7-8 ¶2A.) 4 With respect to Plaintiff’s equal protection claim, Plaintiff suggested in the Complaint that he may 5 have been treated differently because of his Middle Eastern Background. The Court’s Screening 6 Order informed Plaintiff that to state an equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff 7 must show that the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff 8 based upon membership in a protected class. (Id. at 3 ¶2B.) The Court found that Plaintiff did not 9 allege any facts in the Complaint supporting a claim that he was intentionally discriminated against. 10 Id. Based on this analysis, the Court found that Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to state a claim. 11 Plaintiff has not shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief, and has therefore 12 not met his burden as the party moving for reconsideration. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d 13 at 880. Plaintiff’s disagreement is not sufficient grounds for relief from the order. Westlands Water 14 Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d at 1131. 15 III. CONCLUSION 16 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case, filed on July 27, 2011, is DENIED; and 18 2. The Court shall not consider any further motions to reopen the case, or motions for 19 reconsideration, in this action. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: September 6, 2011 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?