Steven Williams v. Sampson et al
Filing
38
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 36 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/15/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
STEVEN WILLIAMS,
CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00551-AWI-GBC (PC)
Plaintiff,
10
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
v.
11
(ECF No. 36)
12
D. ZANCHI,
Defendant.
13
/
14
ORDER
15
16
I.
Plaintiff Steven Williams is a state prisoner who proceeded pro se and in forma
17
18
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19
On December 3, 2010, the Court issued an Order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s
20
findings and recommendations, granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and dismissing
21
this action, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No.
22
28 & 25.) Plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 30.) On May 9, 2011, Plaintiff
23
filed a Motion for Rehearing with this Court. (ECF No. 36.) Plaintiff’s appeal was
24
dismissed on June 9, 2011. (ECF No. 37.)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Rehearing is now pending before this Court.
25
26
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
27
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an
28
order for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an
1
1
equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary
2
circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal
3
quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury
4
and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
5
omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what new
6
or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not
7
shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the
8
facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.”
9
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
10
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
11
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it
12
“may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could
13
reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos
14
Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and
15
citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
16
III.
ANALYSIS
17
Plaintiff states that his original complaint contains evidence that Defendants were
18
in procedural default because they missed prison appeal procedure deadlines, and that
19
Defendants never disputed that fact. Plaintiff specifically refers to pages 91, 94, and 97
20
of his complaint, stating that the time stamps on these prison appeal documents clearly
21
establish an error in calculating dates by the Magistrate Judge.
22
This is the basically same argument offered by Plaintiff in his Opposition to
23
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and in his Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
24
Recommendations. (ECF Nos. 21 & 26.) Plaintiff does not demonstrate any new or
25
different facts or circumstances which did not exist or were not shown in his previous
26
filings. In fact, Plaintiff points to exactly the same page numbers to make the same
27
argument. Plaintiff does not offer any newly discovered evidence, clear error, or a change
28
in the law.
2
1
2
3
IV.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Because Plaintiff did not meet his burden as the party moving for reconsideration,
his motion is HEREBY DENIED. No further filings will be accepted in this closed case.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
Dated:
0m8i78
June 15, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?