Kyle Steven Martin v. Sandra Pennywell et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 25 Motion to Reopen Case signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/4/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
KYLE S. MARTIN,

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS (PC)

13
Plaintiff,

14
v.

15
16

(ECF No. 25)
SANDRA PENNYWELL, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN
CASE

I.

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

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 5 & 22.)

21

Plaintiff‟s Complaint (ECF No. 5) and First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10)

22

were screened and dismissed, with leave to amend, on August 30, 2013 and December

23

2, 2013, respectively, for failure to state cognizable claims. (ECF Nos. 7 and 14.) On

24

December 30, 2013, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and

25

recommended dismissal with prejudice because Plaintiff had failed to cure identified

26

deficiencies in his prior complaints and state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 21.) On May

27

21, 2014, the District Court adopted those Findings and Recommendations and

28

1

dismissed the case with prejudice. (ECF Nos. 23 & 24.)

2
3
4

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s March 16, 2015 motion to reopen the case. (ECF
No. 25.) Plaintiff seeks to have his case reopened on the basis that he has mental
disabilities which have prevented him from timely meeting the Court’s deadlines.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff misconstrues the reason for the Court’s prior dismissal and closure of his
action. Plaintiff’s case was not dismissed for failure to timely respond to Court orders.
Rather, Plaintiff’s case was dismissed with prejudice because, after three attempts, he
was unable to state a cognizable claim. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration
of the Court’s final screening order, the following legal standard applies.
II.

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT
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.”
“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,
2

1
2

1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp.
834, 856 (D. N.J. 1992)).

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff states his mental disability has affected his ability to timely respond to
court orders. But, as noted above, his case was not dismissed for failure to respond or
delay in responding. It was dismissed because it did not set forth a cognizable claim..
Plaintiff has not presented any recognizable basis for reopening his case.
IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen (ECF No. 25.) is HEREBY

DENIED.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated:

May 4, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3