Barry Lamon v. Tilton et al
Filing
97
ORDER DENYING Motion for Reconsideration, With Prejudice 96 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/9/13. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
BARRY LAMON,
10
11
CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00157-AWI-SKO PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION, WITH PREJUDICE
v.
(Doc. 96)
12
13
JOHN TILTON, et al.,
Defendants.
/
14
15
Plaintiff Barry Lamon, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
16
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 26, 2009. On April 4, 2013, Plaintiff
17
filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order striking his second motion
18
for an extension of time.
19
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order
20
for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to
21
prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances exist.
22
Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotations marks and citation omitted). The
23
moving party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control. Id. (quotation
24
marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show
25
“what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not
26
shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or
27
circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.”
28
1
1
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,
2
unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if
3
there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma
4
GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted,
5
and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s
6
decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its
7
decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).
8
On March 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of time to object to findings
9
and recommendations filed on February 7, 2013. The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s motion
10
on March 20, 2013, and on the same day, Plaintiff filed a second motion for an extension of time,
11
which was stricken as duplicative and is the subject of the motion for reconsideration.
12
The Magistrate Judge did not err. Plaintiff’s second motion was filed two days after his first
13
motion and on the same day that the Court granted the relief he requested. Plaintiff’s desire to add
14
into the record further evidence demonstrating he is being denied access to the courts does not entitle
15
him to reconsideration. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6); Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880.
16
(Doc. 96, Motion, p. 2.) Plaintiff was granted the relief he sought, resolving the matter.
17
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on April 4, 2013, is HEREBY
18
DENIED, with prejudice.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
Dated:
0m8i78
April 9, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?