Williams v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 57

ORDER denying 53 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/26/2012. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

LONNIE WILLIAMS,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

1:09-cv-01882-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 53.)

vs.
P. RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

13

Defendants.
/

14
15

I.

BACKGROUND

16

Lonnie Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner in the custody of the California Department

17

of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil

18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was initiated by civil complaint filed by

19

Plaintiff on October 27, 2009. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Fourth Amended

20

Complaint filed on January 19, 2012, against defendants C/O Torres and C/O Rodriguez for

21

retaliation under the First Amendment. (Doc. 36.) Service of process has been initiated, but no other

22

parties have appeared.

23

On August 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for change of venue, which was denied by the

24

Court’s order issued on September 12, 2012. (Docs. 49, 52.) On September 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed

25

a motion for reconsideration of the order denying the motion. (Doc. 53.)

26

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

27

Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies

28

relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice
1

1

and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d

2

737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must

3

demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks

4

and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff

5

to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or

6

were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

7

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

8

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if

9

there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma

10

GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted,

11

and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s

12

decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its

13

decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).

14

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Court committed clear error, or presented the Court

15

with new information of a strongly convincing nature, to induce the Court to reverse its prior

16

decision. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration shall be denied.

17

III.

CONCLUSION

18

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on September 24, 2012, is DENIED; and

20

2.

No other motions for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion

21

for change of venue shall be considered by the Court.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

September 26, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2