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)
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?