Helms v. Mims et al

Filing 16

ORDER Denying Motion To Reopen Case (Doc. 15 ), ORDER Granting Request For Copy Of Docket Sheet, ORDER For Clerk To Send Plaintiff A Copy Of The Docket Sheet From This Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/16/2013.(Enclosed: Copy of Docket Sheet.)(Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

Plaintiff,

12
13

1:12-cv-00897-GSA-PC

CLYDE C. HELMS,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN
CASE
(Doc. 15.)

vs.
MARGARET MIMS, et al.,

14

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR
COPY OF DOCKET SHEET

Defendants.

ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND
PLAINTIFF A COPY OF THE DOCKET
SHEET FROM THIS CASE

15
16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

Clyde C. Helms (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

21

commencing this action on June 1, 2012. (Doc. 1.) On June 13, 2012, Plaintiff consented to

22

the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 5.) On August 23,

23

2012, the court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim,

24

with leave to amend. (Doc. 9.) On August 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed the First Amended

25

Complaint. (Doc. 10.) On April 19, 2013, after screening the First Amended Complaint, the

26

undersigned issued an order dismissing the case, without leave to amend, based on Plaintiff’s

27

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, without prejudice to filing a new

28

action addressing his claims against defendants Ruvalcaba and Aw. (Doc. 13.)
1

1

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, a motion to reopen

2

this case, and a request for a copy of the docket sheet for this case. (Doc. 15.)

3

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

4

The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42

5

F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th

6

Cir. 1992). Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v.

7

Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460

8

(9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the

9

place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Zimmerman v. City

10

of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001); Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood

11

Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the

12

court to rethink what it has already thought. Walker v. Giurbino, 2008 WL 1767040, *2

13

(E.D.Cal. 2008). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature

14

to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

15

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on

16

other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local

17

Rule 230(j) requires a party to show the Anew or different facts or circumstances claimed to

18

exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds

19

exist for the motion.@ L.R. 230(j).

20

Plaintiff’s Motion

21

Plaintiff requests the court to send him a copy of the docket sheet for this case and

22

reopen the case. Plaintiff asserts that between January 2013 and June 2013, he was moved to

23

the county jail in Lerdo, then to a correctional facility in California City, then to Prumb, and

24

then to FCI-Sheridan, his current place of incarceration. Plaintiff requests the court to reopen

25

the case “if, by chance, due to my inability to respond to anything related to this matter, [] the

26

court has dismissed this action for lack of response.” Motion, Doc. 15.

27

///

28

///
2

1

Discussion

2

Plaintiff requests the court to reopen his case in the event that it was dismissed due to

3

his lack of response to the court. Here, Plaintiff’s case was not dismissed because he failed to

4

respond to the court. The case was dismissed, without leave to amend, because Plaintiff failed

5

to state a claim in the First Amended Complaint. The dismissal of Plaintiff’s case was in no

6

way a result of Plaintiff’s four moves between January and June 2013 or his failure to receive

7

or respond to court orders. Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing

8

nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen

9

the case shall be denied.

10

With respect to Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the docket sheet for this case, the court

11

finds good cause to grant the request, and the Clerk shall be directed to send a copy to Plaintiff.

12

III.

CONCLUSION

13

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to reopen this case, filed on August 12, 2013, is DENIED;

15

2.

Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the docket sheet for this case is GRANTED; and

16

3.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet for this

17

case.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

22
23
24

August 16, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

25
26
27
28
3