Paul Weldon v. Dyer et al

Filing 160

ORDER Denying 156 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/28/15. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

PAUL WELDON,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13
14

Case No. 1:13-CV-00540-LJO-SAB

v.
JOHN CONLEE, POLICE OFFICER,
FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT;
ECONO TOWING; MARTY KODMAN,
OWNER, ECONO TOWING; ROBERT
KODMAN, OWNER, ECONO TOWING;
AND BERYLE DODSON, EMPLOYEE,
ECONO TOWING,

15

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION.
(Doc. 156)

Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff Paul Weldon (“Weldon”) proceeds pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to

19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 21, 2015, the Court rendered its Order (Doc. 148), granting summary
20 judgment on all claims in favor of Defendants. Before the Court in the above-styled and numbered
21 cause of action is Weldon’s “Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Defendants’ and Denying
22 Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment, and Dismissing as Moot Plaintiff’s Motions to Stay and
23 for Reconsideration,” filed May 15, 2015 (Doc. 156). The matter is appropriate for resolution
24 without oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g). Having considered the record in this case, the
25 parties’ briefing, and the relevant law, the Court will deny the motion.
26 I.

LEGAL STANDARD

27

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order

28 for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be ‘used sparingly as an equitable remedy to

1

prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances' “ exist.

2

Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co.,

3

Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and

4

circumstances beyond his control.” Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103. In seeking reconsideration of an

5

order, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are

6

claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other

7

grounds exist for the motion.”
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,

8
9

unless the ... court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is

10

an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH

11

& Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009), and “ ‘[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more

12

than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and ‘recapitulation ...’ “ of that which was already

13

considered by the court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist. ., 134 F. Supp. 2d

14

1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 834,

15

856 (D.N.J. 1992)).

16

II.

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

17
18

which would warrant reconsideration of this Court's April 15, 2015 order. Plaintiff essentially

19

rehashes arguments raised in his prior motions which the Court has already reviewed, considered,

20

and ruled upon. Plaintiff has not shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief.

21

III.

22
23

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 156)

is DENIED.

24
25

SO ORDERED
Dated: May 28, 2015
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2