Arviso v. Fresno County Sheriff Department et al

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING 16 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 03/31/2015. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
BENNY ANGEL ARVISO,

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-0469-MJS (PC)

13
Plaintiff,

14

MOTION

FOR

v.

15
16

ORDER
DENYING
RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 16)

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

17

Defendants

18
19
20

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

21

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

22

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to Magistrate

23

Judge jurisdiction.

24

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim

25

based on statute of limitations grounds. (ECF No. 14.) The Court found that Plaintiff’s

26

action was untimely, and on July 9, 2014 the case was dismissed without leave to

27

amend. (ECF Nos. 14 & 15.)

28

1
2
3

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s March 27, 2015 Motion for Reconsideration (ECF
No. 16.).
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’s motion simply requests review of the dismissal. It does not state a basis

for review, make any argument, or present any evidence which would suggest the
Court’s dismissal was in error.
Plaintiff has not provided a basis for reconsideration.
2

1
2
3

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 16) is

HEREBY DENIED.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated:

March 31, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3