Polk v. Lattimore et al

Filing 68

ORDER Denying 63 Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 04/21/2015. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8

SUSAN MAE POLK,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

1:12-cv-01156-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 63.)

MARY LATTIMORE, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

15

Susan Mae Polk (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

16

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On April 3, 2015, the undersigned issued an order addressing

17

Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s orders. (Doc. 60.) On April 13, 2015, Plaintiff

18

filed objections to the April 3, 2015 order, which the court construes as a motion for

19

reconsideration of the order. (Doc. 63.)

20

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

21

Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake,

22

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with

23

reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under

24

Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or

25

misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies

26

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to

27

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

28

exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and
1

1

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

2

his control . . . .”

3

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

4

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

5

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

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In seeking

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

Here, Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature in her

18

motion for reconsideration to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, the

19

motion for reconsideration shall be denied.

20

III.

21
22

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

reconsideration, filed on April 13, 2015, is DENIED.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 21, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2