Mack v. Hubbard, et al.
Filing
12
ORDER Granting Plaintiff's First 11 Motion to Extend Time to File Amended Complaint; ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 06/05/2013. Amended Complaint due by 7/9/2013. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANTHONY E. MACK,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
S. HUBBARD, et al.,
15
Case No. 1:11-cv-00606-SAB (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Defendants.
(ECF No. 11)
16
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Anthony E. Mack (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 15, 2013, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and
dismissed it with leave to amend. (ECF No. 9.) On May 15, 2013, the Court also denied
Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction for lack of
jurisdiction. (ECF No. 10.) On May 31, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to file an
amended complaint, a motion for a copy of the original complaint, and a motion for
reconsideration. (ECF No. 11.)
1.
Extension of Time
On May 31, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to file an amended complaint.
(ECF No. 11.) Good cause having been presented to the Court and good cause appearing
therefor, Plaintiff will be granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order in which to
28
1
1
file an amended complaint.
2
2.
3
Reconsideration
Motions for reconsideration of a district court order are governed by Federal Rule of Civil
4
Procedure 60(b). The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or
5
6
judgment on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . . . (3) fraud .
7
. . by an opposing party, . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
8
The motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time. Id. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to
9
be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only
10
where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir.
11
2008). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . .
12
13
. .” Id. Local Rule 230(j) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or circumstances
14
are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other
15
grounds exist for the motion.” “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly
16
unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
17
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not
18
19
be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have
been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marilyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co.,
20
21
571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original).
22
In Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, he simply restates his prior arguments and does
23
not present newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in the law. Thus, the
24
Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider this Court’s order denying a temporary restraining
25
order and preliminary injunction. Accordingly,
26
///
27
///
28
2
1
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1.
3
Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order in which
to file an amended complaint;
4
2.
5
The Clerk’s office shall send Plaintiff a copy of his original complaint, filed on
April 5, 2011; and
6
3.
7
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s May 15, 2013 order is
DENIED.
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
Dated:
12
June 5, 2013
_
DEAC_Signature-END:
13
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
i1eed4
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?