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)

Download PDF
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?