Heyer v. Krueger et al

Filing 29

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 28 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 3/5/14: Motion is DENIED with prejudice. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD D. HEYER,

12

Plaintiff,

13

Case No. 1:13-cv-01297 DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
(Document 28)

14

ANGELA KRUEGER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Richard D. Heyer (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

17
18

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on

19

August 5, 2013, and the action was transferred to this Court on August 13, 2013.1
On February 14, 2014, the Court screened the complaint and dismissed it with leave to

20
21

amend. Plaintiff was permitted to amend only the Eighth Amendment claim.
On February 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the screening order.

22
23

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

24

Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies

25

relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice

26

and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d

27

737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must

28
1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on August 30, 2013.

1

1

demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks

2

and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to

3

show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were

4

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,

5
6

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

7

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

8

GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted,

9

and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s

10

decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its

11

decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).

12

II.

13

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s basis for his motion is his belief that the Court “misinterpreted” his complaint and

14

“got it wrong.” Mot. 1. Plaintiff believes that he has stated an Eighth Amendment claim against

15

Defendants Young and Krueger based on his contention that (1) Defendant Krueger has gone beyond

16

the performance of traditional legal functions; (2) Inmate McNutt’s son threatened to kill Plaintiff;

17

and (3) inmates did not have information about Plaintiff’s criminal convictions until Defendant

18

Young answered the subpoena.

19

Plaintiff’s contentions, however, do not merit reconsideration. At most, Plaintiff simply

20

disagrees with the Court’s screening decision and the Court’s application of the law to his complaint.

21

Plaintiff has not shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief, and has therefore not met

22

his burden as the party moving for reconsideration. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880.

23

Plaintiff’s disagreement is not sufficient grounds for relief from the order. Westlands Water Dist.,

24

134 F.Supp.2d at 1131.

25

Moreover, Plaintiff’s complaint has been dismissed with leave to amend. This means that he

26

is free to allege facts in his amended complaint that he believes will cure the deficiencies identified

27

in the screening order.

28
2

Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED, with prejudice, and Plaintiff is required to comply

1
2

with the Court’s order within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order or this action will

3

be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state any claims for relief under section 1983.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

March 5, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3