Starr v. CDCR

Filing 103

ORDER DENYING 101 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 04/18/2014. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROBIN GILLEN STARR,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

vs.

1:11-cv-02108-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Docs. 101.)

CDCR,

11

Defendant.

12
13

I.

BACKGROUND

14

Robin Gillen Starr (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

15

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 12, 2014, this

16

case was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and judgment was entered. (Docs. 93, 94.)

17

On April 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections which the court construes as a motion for

18

reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing this action. (Doc. 101.)

19

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

20

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

21

justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent

22

manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist.

23

Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation

24

omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his

25

control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of

26

an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or

27

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior

28

motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”
1

1

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

2

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

3

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,

4

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

5

marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a

6

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already

7

considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134

8

F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a

9

strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare

10

Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and

11

reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

12

Discussion

13

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is haphazardly organized at best and is peppered

14

with incomplete sentences and legal citations, interspersed with insubstantial arguments.

15

Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to

16

reverse its prior decision. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration shall be denied.

17

III.

18
19

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration, filed on April 10, 2014, is DENIED.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 18, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2