Dixon v. Department of Correction and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 21 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/2/2011. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

DUANE DIXON,

9
10

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-01225-LJO-DLB PC
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
(DOC. 21)

11

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

12
Defendants.
13

/

14
Plaintiff Duane Dixon (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
15
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff was proceeding pro se and in
16
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 8, 2011, the
17
Court dismissed Plaintiff’s action for failure to state a claim. Pending before the Court is
18
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed June 30, 2011. Doc. 21.
19
A court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order for, inter alia, mistake,
20
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Motions to reconsider are
21
committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir.
22
1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). A party
23
seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the
24
court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.
25
Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514
26
(9th Cir. 1987). This Court’s Local Rule 230(j) requires a party seeking reconsideration to
27
demonstrate “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not
28
1

1

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

2

Plaintiff contends that he should be granted leave to amend. However, the Magistrate

3

Judge assigned to this action found that Plaintiff would be unable to cure the deficiencies in this

4

action even if he was afforded leave to amend. Findings and Recommendations, Doc. 15. The

5

undersigned agrees. Plaintiff has presented no new facts or circumstances that merit

6

reconsideration of the Court’s judgment in this action.

7

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed June 30, 2011, is DENIED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:
b9ed48

July 2, 2011

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

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2