Lamon v. Adams et al

Filing 126

ORDER Overruling 124 Objections and Denying Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 07/12/2011. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BARRY LOUIS LAMON, 10 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00205-LJO-SMS PC Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ADAMS, et al., 13 (Doc. 124) Defendants. 14 / 15 I. Order 16 A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration 17 This civil rights action was filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, Barry Louis 18 Lamon (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding in this action against Defendants Buenos, Lee, Ponce, and 19 Purvis (“Defendants”) for Eighth Amendment excessive use of force and deliberate indifference 20 to a threat to Plaintiff’s safety and for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. 21 On June 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order issue “establishing a date and 22 time for a hearing and show cause by the parties to (potential) relationship between actions 23 proceeding separately in the Eastern District Court” (“Motion for Hearing”). (Doc. 119, p. 1.) 24 Plaintiff apparently filed that motion subsequent to being ordered, in case number 1:07-cv25 01390-LJO-GBC PC Lamon v. Adams to show cause why it should not be dismissed as 26 duplicative of case number 1:07-cv-000493-AWI-DLB PC Lamon v. Tilton. Plaintiff’s Motion 27 for Hearing was denied. (Doc. 120.) On July 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed a document entitled 28 1 1 “Plaintiff’s Objections to Court’s Order (Doc. 120), Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ. P., Motion to 2 Vacate the Order.” (Doc. 124.) This document is construed as a motion for reconsideration. 1 3 B. Standards for Reconsideration 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 5 district court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from 6 an order for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable 7 remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances 8 . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and 9 citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond 10 his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) 11 requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what new or different facts or circumstances are 12 claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other 13 grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of 14 the prior motion.” 15 Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick 16 Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th 17 Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing 18 nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City 19 of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other 20 grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988). The Ninth Circuit 21 has stated that “[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the 22 preceding clauses.’” Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981); accord 23 LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). 24 Accordingly, “the clause is reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id. Further, when filing 25 a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j)(3) & (4) requires a party to show the “new or 26 27 28 1 W hile Plaintiff cites Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, there has not been a judgment entered in this matter to be altered or amended. Accordingly, this motion is properly evaluated as a request for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. Further, this motion is being ruled on without affording Defendants the opportunity to file an opposition as they will not be prejudiced since the motion is being denied. 2 1 different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist for the motion; and . . . 2 why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” 3 Plaintiff has not shown any new or different facts or circumstances, newly discovered 4 evidence, or an intervening change of law to support his motion. Plaintiff also fails to present 5 any arguments and/or authority to show that this Court erred in denying his Motion for Hearing 6 and to Show Cause Concerning Related Cases in Separate Actions, or that any extraordinary 7 circumstances exist so as to justify the relief he seeks. Plaintiff’s mere disagreement with the 8 Court’s evaluation of his evidence and arguments and ruling thereon, which is all that is shown 9 in the instant motion, is not grounds for reconsideration. Further, while holding a hearing such 10 as Plaintiff desires might prove helpful to Plaintiff in sorting through his actions and claims 11 against numerous defendants, it would clearly not be the most efficient use of limited Court 12 resources. 13 Having carefully considered this matter, the Court finds its Order Denying Plaintiff’s 14 Motion for Hearing and to Show Cause Concerning Related Cases in Separate Actions to be 15 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, to the extent that the document Plaintiff 17 filed on July 5, 2011 objects to the Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing and to Show 18 Cause Concerning Related Cases in Separate Actions, it is OVERRULED; and to the extent that 19 the document Plaintiff filed on July 5, 2011 seeks reconsideration of the Order Denying 20 Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing and to Show Cause Concerning Related Cases in Separate 21 Actions, it is DENIED. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: b9ed48 July 12, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?