Abercrombie v. Corcoran State Prison et al
Filing
37
ORDER Denying 36 Motion for Reconsideration; ORDER Denying 36 Motion for Stay and Motion for Leave to Amend as Moot; ORDER Denying Request for Certificate of Appealability, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/2/14. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RICHARD ABERCROMBIE,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
1:11-cv-00048-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
vs.
DR. KAUT, et al.,
15
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY
AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AS
MOOT
16
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
17
(Doc. 36.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
I.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Richard Abercrombie (APlaintiff@), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 on January 11, 2011. (Doc. 1.)
24
On August 11, 2014, the undersigned dismissed the sole defendant, Dr. Kaut, from this
25
action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to effect service under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil
26
Procedure, dismissing this action in its entirety. (Doc. 34.) On August 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed
27
a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order, a motion for leave to amend the complaint,
28
motion for stay of the proceedings, and a request for a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 36.)
1
1
II.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
2
Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake,
3
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with
4
reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under
5
Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
6
misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies
7
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to
8
prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .”
9
exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and
10
citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond
11
his control . . . .”
12
reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different
13
facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such
14
prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In seeking
15
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
16
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed
17
clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,
18
Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations
19
marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a
20
disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already
21
considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134
22
F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a
23
strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare
24
Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and
25
reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
26
Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court
27
to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration shall be denied.
28
///
2
1
III.
MOTION FOR STAY, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
In light of the court’s ruling herein on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, the motion
2
3
for stay and motion for leave to amend shall be denied as moot.
4
IV.
REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
5
Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that an applicant who files
6
a notice of appeal in a habeas proceeding must obtain a certificate of appealability under 28
7
U.S.C. ' 2253(c), or a statement why a certificate should not issue, from the district judge who
8
rendered judgment in the action. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) (emphasis added). Plaintiff requests a
9
certificate of appealability. However, because Plaintiff=s case is a civil rights action under 42
10
U.S.C. ' 1983 and not a habeas proceeding, Rule 22 is not applicable. Therefore, Plaintiff=s
11
motion for a certificate of appealability shall be denied.
12
V.
CONCLUSION
13
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
14
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on August 27, 2014, is DENIED;
15
2.
Plaintiff’s motions for stay and for leave to amend are DENIED as moot; and
16
3.
Plaintiff’s request for a certificate of appealability, filed on August 27, 2014, is
17
DENIED.
18
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 2, 2014
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?