Armstrong v. Spearman, et al.
Filing
82
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 80 81 Motions for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/4/2015. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BRADY K. ARMSTRONG,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff,
v.
M.E. SPEARMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:13-cv-00246-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR RECONSIDERATION
[ECF Nos. 80, 81]
On October 7, 2015, the instant action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, was dismissed
without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. (ECF Nos. 78, 79.)
On October 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed motion entitled “Answering Defendant(s) … Discovery
20
With Memorandum of Points and Discoverie(s) [sic].” (ECF No. 80.) On November 12, 2015,
21
Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “… Humbly Requesting Posthaste Stop Proceedings And Or
22
Extrension [sic] Of Time Plaintiff Has Not Abandon Claim/Litigation Plaintiff Humbly Request
23
Honorable Court For Six Months Extension of Time…” (ECF No. 81.)
24
Plaintiff’s motions are largely incoherent and nonsensical. At one point in the October 22,
25
2015 motion Plaintiff states, “Plaintiff humbly request this honorable court to; posthaste reconsider its
26
recom[m]endation to dismiss for plaintiff’s clearly interrupted court litigations in this matter, and that
27
plaintiff’s ho[m]leesssness [sic] ‘is’ real and ugly.” (Motion, at 2.) At another point in the motion,
28
Plaintiff states he “suffers bias and prejudice ‘via’ defendants intentional taking fact(s) are clearly
1
1
written on all walls [sic], that defendants et al, defends … with their own discoveries, because of their
2
intentional and unnecessary seizing plaintiff upon day of parole, thereby refusing to allow plaintiff to
3
carry with plaintiff his legal cases, including this case[.]” (Id.)
4
5
6
Although Plaintiff does not reference that he seeks reconsideration under Rule 60 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court construes his motions to be filed as such.
Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt,
7
722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.
8
Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature
9
to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of
10
Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds,
11
828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
12
Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies
13
relief. Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent injustice and is to be
14
utilized only where extraordinary circumstances exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir.
15
2008). The moving party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control.
16
Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d at 749. Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff
17
show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were
18
not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or
19
circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.”
20
Plaintiff has not presented a basis for relief. Plaintiff’s case was dismissed, after Plaintiff
21
repeatedly failed to comply with this Court’s orders and other filing responsibilities. Plaintiff
22
reiterates his arguments, raised and considered prior to the order dismissing this action, that he was
23
unable to timely prosecute this action because he is homeless and suffers from various medical issues.
24
Plaintiff presents no new arguments warranting relief. Plaintiff’s claim that he was not served with
25
documents is unfounded as all filings were properly served at the address of record. See Local Rule
26
182(f) (absent a notice of address change, service of documents at prior address is fully effective).
27
Plaintiff presents nothing more than his repeated arguments that he was unable to prosecute this action
28
2
1
because of his homeless and medical issues. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration are
2
DENIED.
3
4
This case is closed. Any further filings, other than any filings necessary to perfect appeal, will
be disregarded.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Dated: December 4, 2015
8
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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?