Bondurant v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 31

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Reconsideration 26 , 27 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 9/2/11. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

TRAVIS BONDURANT,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

1:11-cv-00159-GBC (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
F. GONZALEZ, et al.,

(ECF Nos. 26 & 27)

Defendants.
/

15
16

CASE NO.

Plaintiff Travis Bondurant (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

17
18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff began this

19

action on January 28, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint

20

on March 17, 201, which was dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim on

21

July 28, 2011. (ECF Nos. 12 & 28.) Plaintiff has not yet filed another amended complaint.

22

Pending before the Court are two motions for reconsideration both filed July 19,

23

2011. (ECF No. 26 & 27.) Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its denial of

24
Plaintiff’s motion requesting that Defendants reply in this action. (ECF Nos. 24 & 26.)
25
26
27

Plaintiff also requests that the Court reconsider its denial of his motion for appointment of
counsel. (ECF Nos. 24 & 27.)

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an

2

order for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an

3

equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary

4
5

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

6

quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury

7

and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation

8

omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what new

9

or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not

10

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the

11
12

facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.”

13

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

14

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

15

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it

16

“may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could

17

reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos

18
19
20

Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and
citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

21

Plaintiff has offered no new evidence, no indication of any error committed by the

22

Court, nor has he cited any change in the controlling law. Plaintiff does not offer any new

23

or different facts or circumstances. In fact, Plaintiff does not offer any argument as to why

24

the Court’s Order was wrong.

25
//
26
27

///

1
2
3

Because Plaintiff did not meet his burden as the party moving for reconsideration,
his motions are HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Dated:
1j0bbc

September 2, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE