Frazier v. Akano et al
Filing
17
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 16 Objections to Magistrate's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/5/2012. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
RODNEI FRAZIER,
Plaintiff,
11
12
CASE NO. 1:10-CV-01656-LJO-MJS PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE’S ORDER
v.
(ECF No. 16)
13
S LOPEZ, et al.,
14
Defendants.
/
15
16
On September 3, 2010, Plaintiff Rodnei Frazier, a state prisoner proceeding pro
17
se and in forma pauperis filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF
18
No. 1.) The Court issued its Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend
19
on January 17, 2012. (ECF No. 12.) On February 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First
20
Amended Complaint which has not yet been screened by the Court. (ECF No. 15)
21
Before the Court is a letter Objection to Magistrate’s Limiting Plaintiff’s Need to
22
Properly Amend. (ECF No 16.) Plaintiff’s Objection, which the Court construes as a
23
motion for reconsideration of its January 17th Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint,
24
takes issue with the following language:
25
“Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend,
26
it is not for the purposes of adding new claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605,
27
28
-1-
1
607 (7th Cir. 2007).”1
2
Plaintiff argues that he should not be precluded from adding new claims that are directly
3
related to his existing claim.
4
Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason
5
that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to
6
prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances
7
... ” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). The moving party “must
8
demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. In seeking
9
reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or
10
different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not
11
shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”
12
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
13
circumstances, unless the ... court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
14
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn
15
Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009),
16
and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the
17
Court’s decision, and recapitulation ... ” of that which was already considered by the
18
Court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111,
19
1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).
20
Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is moot because he has filed a First
21
Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is advised that the language he cites in the Court’s
22
January 12th Order precludes him from bringing “unrelated claims against different
23
defendants ....”2 He may added other claims consistent with controlling law and, where
24
required, leave of the Court.3
25
1
Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint W ith Leave to Amend, p. 12, ECF. No. 12.
2
George, 507 F.3d at 607, citing to Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a).
26
27
28
3
See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, 18-20; See also United States District Court for the Eastern District Local Rules, Rule 220.
-2-
1
2
Plaintiff has not provided grounds or arguments supporting a motion for
3
reconsideration. He has not shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief.
4
He has not met his burden as a party moving for reconsideration. Marlyn
5
Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that Plaintiff’s Objection to
6
7
Magistrate’s Order (ECF No. 16) is DENIED.
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
ci4d6
March 5, 2012
Michael J. Seng
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?