Danny James Cohea v. Grannis et al

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 32 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/18/2015. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
DANNY JAMES COHEA,

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01739-LJO-MJS (PC)

12
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 32)

NANCY GRANNIS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 27, 2012, Plaintiff’s
Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he was given leave to amend.
(ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of that order (ECF No. 10) was denied
by the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff then sought reconsideration by a
District Judge. (ECF No. 12.) On April 15, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration along with his motions for recusal and a stay and motion for a temporary
restraining order. (ECF No. 31.)

1
2
3

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s May 8, 2015 Motion for Reconsideration of that
order. (ECF No. 32.)
II.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from
an order for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be ‘used sparingly as an
equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where
extraordinary circumstances’” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)).
The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control.”
Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103. In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule
230(j) requires a party to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed
to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other
grounds exist for the motion.”

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

LEGAL STANDARD

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn
Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009),
and “‘[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the
Court’s decision, and ‘recapitulation . . .’” of that which was already considered by the
court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111,
1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp.
834, 856 (D. N.J. 1992)).
III.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff does not raise any new facts, circumstances, or change in the law in his

approximately 70-page motion which would warrant reconsideration of this Court’s April
15, 2015 order. Plaintiff essentially summarizes the procedural history of the case and
recapitulates the arguments raised in his prior motions which the Court has already
2

1
2
3
4
5

reviewed, considered, and ruled upon.

Plaintiff has not shown clear error or other

meritorious grounds for relief.
IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 32) is

HEREBY DENIED.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

May 18, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3