Danny James Cohea v. Grannis et al
Filing
11
ORDER Denying 10 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/8/13. Amended Complaint due Within Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
DANNY JAMES COHEA,
Plaintiff,
7
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
v.
8
9
CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01739-LJO-MJS PC
NANCY GRANNIS et al.,
(ECF No. 10)
Defendants.
10
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS
/
11
12
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
13
Plaintiff Danny James Cohea (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
14
forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 25,
15
2012. On January 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the order
16
screening his original Complaint and dismissing it for failure to state a claim under 42
17
U.S.C. § 1983, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 10.)
18
I.
Legal Standard
19
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any
20
reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy
21
to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances
22
exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotations marks and citation
23
omitted). The moving party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his
24
control. Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in
25
relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed
26
to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other
27
grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the
28
1
1
time of the prior motion.”
2
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
3
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
4
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn
5
Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009)
6
(internal quotations marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration
7
must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of
8
that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” United States
9
v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).
10
II.
Discussion and Order
11
Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s decision and seeks reconsideration of the
12
screening order dismissing his original Complaint, with leave to amend. In screening
13
Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s allegations and found that his pleading
14
failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The Court provided him with general pleading
15
requirements and specific requirements for the types of causes of action Plaintiff appeared
16
to be intending to file. The Court gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file a new pleading which
17
contained “a short and plain statement” of a claim which met the standards provided to him
18
by the Court. This was not a situation in which Plaintiff was deprived of notice and an
19
opportunity to amend.
20
Reconsideration is not a vehicle by which to obtain a second bite at the apple; it is
21
reserved for extraordinary circumstances. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d at 1131;
22
see also In re Pacific Far East Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d 242, 250 (9th Cir. 1989) (Fed. R. Civ.
23
P. 60(b)(6) may provide relief where parties were confronted with extraordinary
24
circumstances but it does not provide a second chance for parties who made deliberate
25
choices).
26
reconsideration. Plaintiff’s argument that the Court did not provide him with an adequate
27
screening order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A) is also without merit because although
28
the Court did not discuss each one of Plaintiff’s claims individually, it reviewed his
Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s decision is not grounds for
2
1
Complaint and provided him with the standards he would need to meet if he filed an
2
amended pleading in compliance with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). .
3
III.
Order
4
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
5
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 10) is DENIED;
6
2.
Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall
file an amended complaint; and
7
3.
8
If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order,
this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.
9
10
11
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated:
ci4d6
April 8, 2013
Michael J. Seng
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?