Gray v. Ulit, et al

Filing 26

ORDER DENYING 16 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/24/2011. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CURTIS LE’BARRON GRAY,

12

1:10-cv-00357-LJO-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 16.)

13

vs.

14

DR. ULIT, et al.,

15

Defendants.
/

16
17

I.

18

BACKGROUND
Curtis Le’Barron Gray (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On February 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for

20

reconsideration of the undersigned’s order of February 4, 2011 which adopted the Magistrate Judge’s

21

findings and recommendation to dismiss the Appeals Coordinator as a defendant to this action based

22

on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 16.)

23

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate’s findings and recommendation should not have been

12

adopted, because Plaintiff states a claim against the Appeals Coordinator. Plaintiff argues that the

13

Appeal Coordinator was deliberately indifferent because he failed to review Plaintiff’s medical chart

14

and conduct a proper investigation before deciding not to process Plaintiff’s grievance as an

15

emergency. In the findings and recommendations, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s

16

allegation – that the Appeals Coordinator denied Plaintiff’s request for emergency treatment on the

17

ground that Plaintiff’s medical needs did not warrant the relief sought, does not support a claim that

18

the Appeals Coordinator acted with deliberate indifference. Plaintiff has not shown clear error or

19

other meritorious grounds for relief, and has therefore not met his burden as the party moving for

20

reconsideration. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880.

21

III.

22

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

23

reconsideration, filed on February 14, 2011, is DENIED.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated:
b9ed48

May 24, 2011

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2