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