Hoskins v. The CDCR, et al.

Filing 14

ORDER denying 13 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/7/2012. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RUDOLPH HOSKINS,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

1:10-cv-00422-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 13.)

vs.
CDCR, et al.,

14

Defendants.
/

15
16

I.

BACKGROUND

17

Rudolph Hoskins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on March 10,

19

2010. (Doc. 1.) On March 25, 2010, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States

20

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. 4.) The Court screened the Complaint

21

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and entered an order on November 16, 2011, dismissing this action

22

for failure to state a claim under § 1983, without prejudice to filing a petition for writ of habeas

23

corpus. (Doc. 10.) On February 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order

24

dismissing this action. (Doc. 13.)

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 this case should be reopened so he can amend the Complaint to remove

14

his claim based on parole eligibility and add a claim challenging the classification hearing at which

15

he was labeled an in-cell homosexual predator.

16

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

17

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

18

decision. Plaintiff seeks to have this case reopened so he can amend the Complaint to completely

19

change the nature of his allegations and claims. To bring new claims before the Court at this stage

20

of the proceedings, Plaintiff’s remedy is to file a new case, not to reopen his prior case. Therefore,

21

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration shall be denied.

22

III.

23
24
25
26

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

reconsideration, filed on February 3, 2012, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
220hhe

February 7, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2