Blacher v. Johnson et al
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 112 113 Motions for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/29/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:12-cv-01159-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
(ECF NOS. 112 & 113)
Marlon Blacher (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion
for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for enlargement of time to file
dispositive motions (ECF No. 112) and a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying
Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue and petition for full disclosure (ECF No. 113).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs grounds for relief from an order:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been
satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment
that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no
longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
As to Rule 60(b)(6), Plaintiff “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his
control that prevented him from proceeding with the action in a proper fashion.” Harvest v.
Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted).
Additionally, Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest
injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from
taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” (Id.) (internal quotations
marks and citation omitted).
Plaintiff’s motions will be denied. Plaintiff has failed to set forth facts or law that shows
that he meets any of the above-mentioned reasons for granting relief from either order.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for
reconsideration (ECF Nos. 112 & 113) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 29, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?