Rodgers v. Lopez et al

Filing 40

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 39 Motion for Conference Hearing for Settlment signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/05/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10 SYNRICO RODGERS,

CASE No. 1:11-cv-00630-MJS (PC)

11
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR CONFERENCE HEARING
FOR SETTLEMENT

12
v.

13

(ECF No. 39)
14
R. LOPEZ, et al.,
15
Defendants.

16
17

________________________________/
18
I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

19
Plaintiff Synrico Rodgers, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
20
pauperis, filed this civil rights action on March 25, 2011 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
21
Court identified cognizable claims in the Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendants Martin
22
and Blattel for violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights to adequate medical care.
23
(ECF No. 16.) On September 25, 2012, the Court issued its order granting Defendants’
24
motion to dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative
25
remedies (ECF No. 37) and entered judgment thereon. (ECF No. 38.)
26
On October 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for conference hearing for settlement
27
(ECF No. 39) which is now before the Court.
28
-1-

1
2 II.

ANALYSIS

3

Plaintiff’s motion, which the Court construes as a request for reconsideration of its

4 September 25, 2012 order dismissing action and judgment thereon, is denied.
5

Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order or judgment for any

6 reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy
7 to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances
8 . . . ” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). The moving party “must
9 demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. In seeking
10 reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to identify the motion or
11 order in issue and when it was made, and show “what new or different facts or
12 circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior
13 motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”
14

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

15 circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
16 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn
17 Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009), and
18 “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the [c]ourt’s
19 decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already considered by the court in
20 rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal.
21 2001).
22

Plaintiff fails to identify any new or different facts or circumstances which did not

23 exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.
24

Plaintiff provides no good cause for the relief he seeks. He has shown no basis for

25 granting a motion for reconsideration.
26 III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

27

Plaintiff has not met his burden as a party moving for reconsideration. Marlyn

28 Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880.
-2-

1

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff’s motion

2 requesting for a conference hearing for settlement (ECF No. 39), construed as a motion
3 for reconsideration is DENIED.
4
5
6
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 Dated:
ci4d6
9

October 5, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-