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