Cranford v. Perryman et al
Filing
13
ORDER DENYING 12 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/27/2013. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ARCHIE CRANFORD,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00581-MJS
ORDER
DENYING
RECONSIDERATION
MOTION
FOR
v.
(ECF NO. 12)
SAMANTHA PERRYMAN, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Archie Cranford, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
18
filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 22, 2013. (ECF No. 1.)
19
The Court screened Plaintiff‟s First Amended Complaint on September 30, 2013 and
20
dismissed it with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 10.) On
21
October 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Court‟s dismissal of his claims. (ECF
22
No. 12.) The Court will address that opposition as a request that the Court reconsider its
23
order.
24
Plaintiff asserts that he has taken the same medications for more than twenty-one
25
years without incident. On February 21, 2013, during morning medication distribution,
26
Defendant Endile picked up a pill from the floor and gave it to Plaintiff. The pill was
27
unfamiliar to Plaintiff, and soon after taking it he began suffering side effects. Plaintiff
28
contends that Defendant Endive tried to kill him with the approval of the other
1
1
Defendants. (Id.)
2
Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that
3
justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent
4
manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist.
5
Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and
6
citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances
7
beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking
8
reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or
9
different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not
10
shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion . . . .”
11
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
12
circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
13
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn
14
Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009)
15
(internal quotations marks and citations omitted), and “[a] party seeking reconsideration
16
must show more than a disagreement with the Court‟s decision, and recapitulation . . . ”
17
of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision. U.S. v.
18
Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).
19
Plaintiff has not met the standard for reconsideration of the Court‟s order. Plaintiff
20
offers clarification of his allegations but no new factual allegations that warrant
21
reconsideration of the Court‟s previous analysis and conclusion. Plaintiff fails to show
22
that the Court committed error.
23
Plaintiff makes clear that he believes Defendant Endile tried to kill him with a pill.
24
However, Plaintiff does not submit any plausible factual allegations to support this
25
conclusion.
26
factual matter, accepted as true, to „state a claim that is plausible on its face.‟” Ashcroft
27
v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
28
544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
2
The minimum pleading standard requires that Plaintiff set forth “sufficient
1
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
2
misconduct alleged.”
3
Plaintiff‟s pleadings and the instant motion simply reflect a suspicion unsupported by any
4
fact other than Defendant giving Plaintiff a pill and Plaintiff becoming ill soon after. Even
5
accepting that sequence of events and that the pill may have caused Plaintiff to feel ill, it
6
is as plausible to surmise that Defendant acted negligently as that he acted maliciously.
7
No facts suggest evidence of a motive or intent to harm Plaintiff.
8
9
10
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.)
Plaintiff‟s has not shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief. He has
not met the burden imposed on a party moving for reconsideration.
Marlyn
Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880.
11
Plaintiff‟s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 12) is DENIED, with prejudice. No
12
further motions for reconsideration will be considered. If one is filed, it will be summarily
13
stricken from the record. At this juncture, Plaintiff‟s recourse lies with the appellate court.
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 27, 2013
/s/
17
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
18
Michael J. Seng
ci4d6
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?