Cole v. Munoz et al
Filing
134
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 133 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 7/11/13. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JAMES COLE,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case No. 1:09-cv-00476-SAB (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
LIEUTENANT MUNOZ, et al.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 133)
Defendants.
Plaintiff James Cole (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 13, 2009. On April
2, 2013, this matter proceeded to trial. On April 4, 2013, the Court entered judgment in favor of
the Plaintiff against Defendants Rocha and Blasdell for excessive force only and found that their
conduct was malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights. The Court
entered judgment in favor of Defendants Munoz and Dicks for excessive force and in favor of
Defendants Munoz, Dicks, Rocha, and Blasdell for retaliation
On April 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file for attorney’s
fees, costs, and discovery sanctions. (ECF No. 127.) On May 8, 2013, the Court Denied
Plaintiff’s request. (ECF No. 129.) On July 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion, which the Court
construes as a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 133.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs relief from orders of the district court. The
28
1
1
Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on grounds of: “(1)
2
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . . . (3) fraud . . . by an opposing party, . . .
3
or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration
4
must be made within a reasonable time. Id. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable
5
remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances
6
. . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). The moving party “must
7
demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. Local Rule 230(j)
8
requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist
9
which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the
10
motion.” “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
11
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed
12
clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to
13
raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been
14
raised earlier in the litigation.” Marilyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571
15
F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original).
16
A motion for reconsideration is not the vehicle by which a litigant raises legal argument
17
for the first time when the litigant could have raised in the original motion. Otherwise, there
18
would be no finality to federal court orders, which is why motions for reconsideration are
19
extremely limited in their scope and application. As required by the law, Plaintiff’s motion does
20
not present newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in the law.
21
arguments raised by the Plaintiff in this request could have been addressed in his previous
22
motion. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, a pro se litigant is not entitled to attorney’s fees in this
23
case. Friedman v. Arizona, 912 F.2d 328, 333 n.2 (9th Cir. 1990); Gonzalez v. Kangas, 814 F.2d
24
1411, 1412 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly,
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
2
The
1
2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is hereby
DENIED.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated:
6
July 11, 2013
_
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
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?