Willis v. Lappin et al

Filing 92

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 87 Motion for Reconsideration, With Prejudice, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/29/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES R. WILLIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:09-cv-01703-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION, WITH
PREJUDICE
(Doc. 87.)

DEVERE,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND

20

James R. Willis (APlaintiff@) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

21

action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed this

22

case on September 28, 2009. (Doc. 1.) This case proceeded on Plaintiff’s Third Amended

23

Complaint, filed on July 8, 2011, against defendant Devere (“Defendant”) for failure to protect

24

Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (Doc. 24.) On May 20, 2013, the court

25

dismissed this action with prejudice, pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal and Rule

26

41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 64.)

27
28

1

On March 19, 2013, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing all other claims and
defendants from this action. (Doc. 60.)
1

1

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to enforce the parties’ settlement

2

agreement. (Doc. 66.) On April 21, 2014, the court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion,

3

for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 86.)

4

On May 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend or set aside the court’s dismissal

5

order of May 20, 2013, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc.

6

87.) On May 28, 2014, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 88.) On July 7,

7

2014, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition. (Doc. 91.)

8

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

9

Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake,

10

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with

11

reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under

12

Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or

13

misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies

14

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to

15

prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .”

16

exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and

17

citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond

18

his control . . . .”

19

reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different

20

facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such

21

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In seeking

22

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

23

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

24

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,

25

Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations

26

marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a

27

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already

28

considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134
2

1

F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a

2

strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare

3

Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and

4

reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

5

Parties’ Positions

6

Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the court’s order of May 20, 2013, dismissing this

7

action, on the grounds of bad faith conduct, mistake, misrepresentation, fraud, and other

8

misconduct during settlement negotiations between the parties, which caused Plaintiff to enter

9

into an unfair settlement agreement. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant’s counsel breached

10

the parties’ contract because he did not comply with the terms of the settlement agreement

11

during negotiations or in preparing the parties’ stipulation of dismissal.

12

Defendant argues that Plaintiff improperly raises the same meritless issues rejected by

13

the court in his previous motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Defendant argues that

14

that no misrepresentations were made during settlement proceedings, there was no fraud or

15

undue influence, the settlement was fair, the United States paid the settlement, and there is no

16

basis for the court to exercise jurisdiction to modify or enforce the settlement agreement.

17

Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), because of

18

Plaintiff’s mistake in the judicial process, when he signed the stipulation for dismissal under

19

the mistaken belief that the court would retain jurisdiction of the settlement contract.

20

Discussion

21

The issues raised by Plaintiff in his motion for reconsideration were resolved in the

22

court’s order of April 21, 2014, which denied Plaintiff’s motion for the court to enforce the

23

parties’ settlement agreement. (Doc. 86.) Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly

24

convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decisions in this action. Therefore,

25

Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied, and no further motions for reconsideration or clarification

26

shall be considered.

27

///

28

///
3

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

4
5
6

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order of May 20, 2013, is
DENIED, with prejudice; and

2.

No further motions for reconsideration or clarification shall be considered by the
court in this action.

7

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 29, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
4