Bell v. Harrington

Filing 28

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 22 and Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint 23 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10-3-13. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

COREY L. BELL,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:10-cv-00714-AWI-SAB
Plaintiff,

v.
K. HARRINGTON,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
(ECF Nos. 22, 23)

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Corey L. Bell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 26, 2013 an order

19

issued dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to state a claim and judgment was entered.

20

(ECF No. 19.) On September 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed motions for reconsideration and for leave to

21

file an amended complaint and a declaration. (ECF No. 22, 23, 24.)

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs relief from orders of the district court. The

23

Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on grounds of: “(1)

24

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . . . (3) fraud . . . by an opposing party, . . .

25

or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.”

26

reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time.

27

sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where

28

extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008).
1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

The motion for

Id. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used

1

The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id.

2

Local Rule 230(j) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are

3

claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other

4

grounds exist for the motion.”

5

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

6

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

7

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to

8

raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been

9

raised earlier in the litigation.” Marilyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571

10

F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original).

11

Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change

12

in the law. Plaintiff does not meet the standards for granting reconsideration. Accordingly,

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed September 3, 2013 is DENIED; and

15

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the amended complaint, filed September 3,

16

2013, is DENIED.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 3, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

21
22

0m8i788

23
24
25
26
27
28
2