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)

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