Cejas v. Trimble, et al.

Filing 21

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 20 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/21/2014. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW A. CEJAS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 CASE NO. 1:11-cv-2141-MJS (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS v. (ECF No. 20) R.H. TRIMBLE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this case as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s initial complaint was dismissed for violation of Federal Rule of Civil 21 22 Procedure 8(a)(2). (ECF No. 10.) The Court noted that that pleading was over one 23 hundred pages long, named forty-four defendants, and appeared to allege numerous 24 unrelated claims. (Id.) The Court gave plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint no 25 longer than twenty pages in length, with the instruction that the amended pleading 26 27 28 should not combine unrelated facts or defendants and must comply with the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. Plaintiff was 1 warned that “any filing which does not comply with these instructions directing a short 2 and plain statement or any filing which combines unrelated matters or defendants likely 3 will result in dismissal with prejudice of the entire action.” 4 Thereafter Plaintiff sought leave to file a fifty page amended complaint. (ECF No. 5 6 7 11.) The request was denied on the ground that Plaintiff failed to show good cause. (ECF No. 13.) 8 Plaintiff then filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 14.) The Court dismissed 9 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s 10 11 prior screening order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. (ECF No. 18.) The Court noted that the amended complaint was over forty pages long, named forty-five 12 13 14 defendants, and asserted a variety of claims arising out of unrelated facts. Plaintiff was not given further leave to file an amended pleading. Before the Court for decision are Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 20) to the 15 16 screening order, which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration. 17 II. 18 19 LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rules 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 20 21 equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where 22 extraordinary circumstances” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) 23 (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). 24 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 25 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 26 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn 27 Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). 28 2 1 “A motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence 2 for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised in earlier litigation.” Id. 3 4 Moreover, “recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.” U.S. v. Westlands 5 6 Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony 7 Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 834, 856-57 (D.N.J. 1992)). Similarly, Local Rule 230(j) 8 requires that a party seeking reconsideration show that “new or different facts or 9 circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such 10 11 prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion . . . .” III. DISCUSSION 12 13 14 Plaintiff asserts that his amended complaint complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and points out that he cut his original complaint by more than half. 15 However, he acknowledges that his complaint combined “years of constitutional 16 violation[s].” Plaintiff argues that the Court should have informed him if further 17 corrections were needed and should have given Plaintiff leave to amend rather than 18 19 dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff requests a certificate of appealability if his objections are denied. 20 21 The Court’s initial screening order identified the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s 22 complaint, advised him to avoid combining unrelated claims and defendants, and 23 ordered that any amended pleading not exceed twenty pages. Plaintiff sought and was 24 denied leave to file a lengthier pleading. Yet, Plaintiff’s amended complaint was over 25 forty pages long, included numerous unrelated claims and defendants, and did not 26 27 contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The Court carefully weighed the factors to be considered 28 3 1 in determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order or local 2 rules, and determined that those factors weighed in favor of dismissal. (ECF No. 18.) 3 4 Plaintiff provides no basis for reconsidering the Court’s earlier decision. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections, which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration, will be 5 6 denied. 7 Additionally, Plaintiff’s request for a certificate of appealability is misplaced. A 8 certificate of appealability is required for the appeal of habeas corpus proceedings or a 9 proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22. This 10 11 action was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Plaintiff is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability prior to taking an appeal. 12 13 14 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 20) are HEREBY DENIED. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: July 21, 2014 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?