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

Filing 69

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/22/2015 denying Plaintiff's second motion for reconsideration of Court's Order of April 23, 2015, with prejudice 66 . (Lundstrom, T)

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.
R. BRANNUM, et al.,

15

1:12-cv-01516-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
COURT’S ORDER OF APRIL 23, 2015, WITH
PREJUDICE
(Doc. 66.)

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

is now in the discovery phase.
1

1

On June 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the court’s order issued on April 23,

2

2015, which denied Plaintiff’s request for legal recognition. (Doc. 63.) The court construes

3

Plaintiff’s objections as a second motion for reconsideration of the court’s order of April 23,

4

2015.1

5

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

his control . . . .”

16

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

17

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

18

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

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In seeking

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25
26
27
28

1

On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for legal recognition, in which he requested
privileges at the prison based on the fact that he represents himself in this case. (Doc. 49.) On April 23, 2015, the
court denied Plaintiff’s request based on the court’s lack of jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff.
(Doc. 50.) On June 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order of April 23, 2015.
(ECF No. 63.) The motion for reconsideration was denied on June 2, 2015. (ECF No. 64.)
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

motion for reconsideration shall be denied, with prejudice.

9

III.

CONCLUSION

10

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

12
13

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on June 19, 2015, is DENIED, with

prejudice; and
2.

The court shall not consider any further objections of, or motions for

14

reconsideration of, the court’s order of April 23, 2015 which denied Plaintiff’s request for legal

15

recognition.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 22, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3