Bealer v. Warden of K.V.S.P. et al

Filing 178

ORDER DENYING 168 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/21/2016. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ANTWOINE BEALER,

11

1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 168.)

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER S. RIOS

14

and SERGEANT R. BRANNUM,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

18
19

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Antwoine Bealer (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

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

20

On June 2, 2016, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

21

schedule and take Defendants’ depositions, and motion for extension of time to serve

22

deposition subpoenas, or in the alternative, to excuse Plaintiff from the requirement to serve

23

deposition subpoenas.

24

reconsideration of the Court’s order. (ECF No. 168.)

25

II.

(ECF No. 146.)

On July 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

26

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

27

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

28

reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

his control . . . .”

8

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

9

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

10

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In seeking

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

Discussion

23

The Court’s order issued on June 2, 2016 denied Plaintiff leave to schedule and hold

24

depositions in this case because Plaintiff failed to meet “certain requirements, including the

25

requirement to file proof, such as a copy of his trust account statement, that he is able to pay, in

26

advance of the depositions, for the services of a court officer, the recording of the depositions,

27

and any required witness fees, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30.” (ECF No. 146 at 2:11-14.)

28

Plaintiff argues that he substantially complied with the Court’s orders requiring him to submit
2

1

evidence that he was able to arrange and pay for Defendants’ depositions. Plaintiff also argues

2

that he was not allowed sufficient time to make arrangements for depositions, and that the

3

Court was not responsive to his inquiries. The Court’s record for this case shows otherwise.

4

Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature in his motion for

5

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

6

reconsideration shall be denied.

7

III.

8
9

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

reconsideration, filed on July 5, 2016, is DENIED.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 21, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3