Williams v. The State of California et al

Filing 75

ORDER striking 74 Motion to Vacate and Reopen Case signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/4/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
DONALD B. WILLIAMS,

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-0182-LJO-MJS (PC)

13
Plaintiff,

14
v.

15
16

(ECF No. 74)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO VACATE AND REOPEN CASE

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 8 & 31.)

21

Plaintiff began this action by filing his Complaint on February 2, 2011. (ECF No.

22

1.) On March 17, 2011, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with

23

leave to amend. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on April 20,

24

2011. (ECF No. 15.) On August 29, 2011, the Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended

25

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a), and found that Plaintiff stated a

26

cognizable claim against Defendants Enenmoh, Faria, LeMay, Byers and Oneyeje for

27

allegedly violating the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to

28

1
2

Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. (ECF No. 20.) On December 9, 2011, the Court
appointed counsel for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 31.)

3
4
5
6

On March 28, 2012, Defendants Enenmoh, Faria, LeMay, and Oneyeje filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (ECF No. 45.) On April 2, 2012, Defendant
Byers filed a notice of joinder in the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 48.)

7
8
9
10

On

Findings

and

Recommendations to grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.

On

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

24,

2012,

the

Magistrate

Judge

issued

November 20, 2012, the District Court adopted those Findings and Recommendations
and dismissed the case without prejudice. (ECF Nos. 72 & 73.)

11
12

October

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s December 8, 2014 motion to vacate the Court’s
order of dismissal and reopen the case. (ECF No. 74.) Plaintiff seeks to have his case
reopened on the basis that his Court-appointed attorney failed to notify him of the
dismissal and represented that his case was still pending.
II.

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from

an order for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be ‘used sparingly as an
equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where
extraordinary circumstances’” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)).
The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control.”
Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103. In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule
230(j) requires a party to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed
to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other
grounds exist for the motion.”
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn
Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009),
and “‘[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the
Court’s decision, and ‘recapitulation . . .’” of that which was already considered by the
court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111,
1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp.
834, 856 (D. N.J. 1992)).

8
9
10

Plaintiff is represented by counsel in this action. (ECF No. 31.) Unless and until
Plaintiff’s counsel files a motion to withdraw, Plaintiff may not file motions on his own
behalf. Plaintiff’s motion is improper and will therefore be STRICKEN.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Even if properly filed, Plaintiff has not presented a basis for reconsideration.
Plaintiff’s case was dismissed after the Court found that Defendants’ had met their
burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The
failure of Plaintiff’s counsel to notify him of the dismissal is not a basis for this Court to
reconsider the underlying ruling. Plaintiff has not presented any new evidence or legal
authority which would warrant reopening the case.
IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to vacate and reopen (ECF No. 74.) is

HEREBY STRICKEN.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated:

May 4, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28

3