Jacobs v. Quinones et al

Filing 159

ORDER denying 158 Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/19/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

GEORGE E. JACOBS, IV,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12

1:10-cv-02349 AWI-JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.

(Doc. 158)

A.C. QUINONES, et al.,
Defendant.

13
On May 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 158) of the order
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment which dismissed this action and entered
judgement in Defendants’ favor. (Docs. 156, 157.) In his motion, Plaintiff requests another
extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 158.)
Plaintiff’s motion is construed as a motion to reconsider/set aside the judgment entered against
him pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 60(b)(6) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment for
Aany . . . reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.@ The motion for
reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, in any event Anot more than one year
after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.@ Id. Motions to reconsider are
committed to the discretion of the trial court. Garcia v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 2015);
Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth
facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See,

26

e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff=d

27

in part and rev=d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). The Ninth Circuit has

28

stated that A[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and >must be read as being exclusive of the preceding
1

1
2
3
4

clauses.=@ LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir.
1986), quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, Athe
clause is reserved for >extraordinary circumstances.=@ Id.
This action was dismissed on summary judgment for Defendants which was ruled on in

5

the absence of both Plaintiff’s opposition and objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

6

Defendants’ filed their motion for summary judgment well over a year ago, on January 30, 2015.

7

(Doc. 124.) Plaintiff requested and received multiple extensions of time both to file an opposition

8

to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see Docs. 128, 129, 131, 132, 136-139) and

9

thereafter to file objections to the Findings and Recommendation that Defendants’ motion for

10

summary judgment be granted (see Docs. 149, 151, 153, 155). All in all, Plaintiff was granted a

11

year and three months to respond in one fashion or another, but failed to do so.

12

Plaintiff’s medical status, which he raises again in the current motion, was accounted for

13

both in the extensions of time granted to him to file objections to the Findings and

14

Recommendations and, ultimately, in the Order Adopting the Findings and Recommendation—

15

which does not now amount to extraordinary circumstances to justify relief from the operation of

16

the judgment.

17
18

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed
on May 11, 2016 (Doc. 158) is DENIED.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 19, 2016
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2