Crim v. Management & Training Corp. et al

Filing 76

ORDER DENYING 58 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/3/2012. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JOHN MICHAEL CRIM,

11

1:09-cv-02041-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

vs.
(Doc. 58)

13

MANAGEMENT & TRAINING
CORP., et al.,

14
Defendants.
15
/
16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

John Michael Crim (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff

20

filed the Complaint commencing this action on November 20, 2009. (Doc. 1.)

21

On March 28, 2012, the Court entered an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s findings and

22

recommendations, denying Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief for want of

23

jurisdiction over defendants Villatoro and Benov. (Doc. 54.) On May 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed

24

objections to the Court’s order, which the Court treats as a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 16.)

25

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

26

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

27

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

28

and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

Plaintiff argues that the Court should grant his motions for preliminary injunctive relief and

14

stop prison officials from opening his legal mail outside of his presence, because this offensive

15

behavior denies Plaintiff of his access to the courts.

16

The Court denied Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction against defendants Villatoro

17

and Benov for want of jurisdiction over these defendants. (Doc. 54.) Plaintiff has not demonstrated

18

that the Court committed clear error, or presented the Court with new information of a strongly

19

convincing nature, to induce the Court to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, the motion for

20

reconsideration shall be denied.

21

III.

22

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for

23

reconsideration, filed on May 22, 2012, is DENIED.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated:
0m8i78

August 3, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2