Ransom v. Hubbard et al

Filing 16

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 15 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 10/10/11. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

BRYAN E. RANSOM,
Plaintiff,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00875-GBC (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
(ECF No. 15)

12
13

S. HUBBARD, et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
15
16
17

ORDER
Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

18

On September 15, 2011, the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motions for

19

Injunctive Relief. (ECF No. 14.) Pending before the Court now is Plaintiff’s Motion for

20

Reconsideration filed on September 29, 2011. (ECF No. 15.)

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

10

Plaintiff’s Motion merely reiterates the language from his Motions. He has offered

11

no new evidence, no indication of any error committed by the Court, nor has he cited any

12

change in the controlling law. Plaintiff does not offer any new or different facts or

13

circumstances. In fact, Plaintiff does not offer any argument as to why the Court’s Order

14

was wrong other than the arguments he originally made in the Motions.
Because Plaintiff did not meet his burden as the party moving for reconsideration,

15
16

his motion is HEREBY DENIED.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated:
1j0bbc

October 10, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2