Harris v. Pimentel, et al.

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING Motion for Reconsideration 42 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/18/15. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARRELL HARRIS,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:13-CV-01354-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 42)

v.

15
16
17

R. PIMENTEL, et al.,
Defendants.

18
19
20

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

21

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s

22

Free Exercise, RLUIPA, and Equal Protection claims against Defendant Escamilla, who

23

has appeared in the action. (ECF Nos. 10 & 14.)

24
25

On May 28, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate the instant
action with a state court case. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of

26
27
28

that ruling, filed June 17, 2015, is now before the Court. (ECF No. 42.)

1

II.

2
3

LEGAL STANDARD
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

4
equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where
5
6
7

extraordinary circumstances” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008)
(internal quotations marks and citation omitted).

8

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

9

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,

10

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn

11

Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009).

12
13
14

“A motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence
for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised in earlier litigation.” Id.

15

Moreover, “recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before

16

rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.” U.S. v. Westlands

17

Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony

18
19

Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 834, 856-57 (D.N.J. 1992)). Similarly, Local Rule 230(j)
requires that a party seeking reconsideration show that “new or different facts or

20
21

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such

22

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion . . . .”

23

III.

ANALYSIS

24

Plaintiff presents no new evidence or facts to the Court here. Instead, he argues

25

that the Court committed an error of law. The authority he cites is inapposite. Cienaga

26

Gardens v. United States permitted the consolidation of two cases that were both

27
28

pending before the Court of Federal Claims, not a state case with a federal one. 62 Fed.
2

1

Cl. 28, 29 (Fed. Cl. 2004). , Mitchum v. Foster did not involve consolidation at all, but

2

the authority of a federal court to enjoin state proceedings during the pendency of a

3

federal § 1983 action. 407 U.S. 225, 242 (1972). Finally, the possibility that Defendants

4
may try to introduce evidence that Plaintiff has filed other lawsuits is not a reason for
5
6

consolidating the present action with the other suits.

If Plaintiff believes particular

7

evidence is unduly prejudicial to him, he may object to its introduction. See Fed. R. Evid.

8

403.

9
10
11

Under Rule 42, a court may only consolidate actions that are pending before it.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is HEREBY DENIED.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 18, 2015

/s/

16

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Michael J. Seng

3