Branch v. Grannis, et al.,

Filing 171

ORDER Denying 169 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 06/09/2015. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOUIS BRANCH, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. 1:08-cv-01655-AWI-GSA-PC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 169.) D. UMPHENOUR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 20 Stewart Manago (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 21 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action 22 on September 20, 2013. (Doc. 1.) On September 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed motion to proceed in 23 forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 4.) 24 order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 6.) On October 8, 2013, the court issued an 25 On January 14, 2015, the court issued an order revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis 26 status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and dismissing the case, without prejudice to refiling 27 with the submission of the $400 filing fee. (Doc. 12.) On January 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a 28 motion for reconsideration of the court’s order. (Doc. 14.) 1 1 II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 2 Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake, 3 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with 4 reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 5 Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or 6 misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies 7 relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to 8 prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” 9 exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and 10 citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond 11 his control . . . .” 12 reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different 13 facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such 14 prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking 15 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 16 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 17 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 18 Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations 19 marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 20 disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already 21 considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 22 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a 23 strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare 24 Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and 25 reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 26 Here, Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature in his 27 motion for reconsideration to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, the 28 motion for reconsideration shall be denied. 2 1 2 3 III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on June 5, 2015, is DENIED. 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 9, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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?