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

Filing 64

ORDER DENYING 63 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/2/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTOINE BEALER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:12-cv-01516-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 63.)

R. BRANNUM, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

18

Antoine Bealer ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 14, 2012, Plaintiff

20

filed the Complaint commencing this action. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds with the Fourth

21

Amended Complaint filed on March 28, 2014, against defendants Rios and Brannum for use of

22

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 21.)

23

On March 2, 2015, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing

24

pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a deadline of November 2, 2015, to complete

25

discovery, and a deadline of January 11, 2016, to file dispositive motions. (Doc. 45.) This case

26

is now in the discovery phase.

27
28

On June 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order issued
on April 20, 2015, which denied Plaintiff’s motion for legal recognition. (Doc. 63.)
1

1

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

his control . . . .”

12

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

13

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

14

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

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In seeking

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

motion for reconsideration shall be denied.
2

1
2
3

III.

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

reconsideration, filed on June 1, 2015, is DENIED.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 2, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3