Fahie v. Mercy Hospital et al
Filing
31
ORDER denying 30 Motion for relief from final judgment signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/22/2011. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
ANTONIO FAHIE,
9
10
CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01024-LJO-DLB PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM FINAL JUDGMENT
v.
(DOC. 30)
11
12
13
MERCY HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants.
/
14
15
Plaintiff Antonio Fahie (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner, proceeding pro se in
16
this civil rights action. On December 3, 2010, the magistrate judge assigned to this action issued
17
a Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) recommending dismissal of this action for failure to
18
state a claim. On February 2, 2011, the undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendations
19
in full, and issued judgment accordingly. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for relief
20
from judgment, filed February 25, 2011. Doc. 30.
21
A court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order for, inter alia, mistake,
22
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Motions to reconsider are
23
committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir.
24
1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). A party
25
seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the
26
court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.
27
Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514
28
(9th Cir. 1987). This Court’s Local Rule 230(j) requires a party seeking reconsideration to
1
1
demonstrate “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not
2
exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”
3
Plaintiff contends that he was ignorant of the law regarding his claim. Plaintiff argues
4
that he was unaware that a claim which amounted at most to negligence failed to state a claim
5
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests that the Court dismiss this action pursuant to
6
Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal in order for Plaintiff to avoid accruing a strike under 28
7
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
8
9
Plaintiff provides no good cause that merits relief from judgment in this action. The
Court screened Plaintiff’s complaints three times, each time informing Plaintiff that a claim for
10
negligence fails to state a claim under § 1983. See Order, filed Oct. 28, 2009, Doc. 7; F&R, filed
11
May 19, 2010, Doc. 11; Order Adopting F&R, filed June 21, 2010, Doc. 18; F&R, filed Dec. 3,
12
2010, Doc. 26; Order Adopting F&R, filed Feb. 2, 2011, Doc. 28. Dismissal for failure to state a
13
claim was proper.
14
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for relief from final
15
judgment, filed February 25, 2011 is DENIED.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated:
b9ed48
July 22, 2011
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
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?