Donovan L Haley v. Hiede M Lackner et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying motion for reconsideration re 19 ; for Plaintiff to compy with 18 Order and granting extenison to fime to file amended complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/23/2014. (Amended Complaint due by 6/26/2014).(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DONOVAN L. HALEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
HEIDI LACKNER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

1:13-cv-01403-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 19.)
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH
MAY 8, 2014 SCREENING ORDER
(Doc. 18.)
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

17

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

18
19
20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

Donovan L. Haley (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

22

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 29, 2013, Plaintiff

23

filed the Complaint commencing this action at the United States District Court for the Central

24

District of California. (Doc. 7.) On August 29, 2013, this case was transferred to the court for

25

the Eastern District of California. (Doc. 4.)

26

The court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A and entered an order on

27

May 8, 2014, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to file an

28

amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 18.) On May 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections
1

1

to the court’s screening order, which the court construes as a motion for reconsideration of the

2

screening order. (Doc. 19.)

3

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

4

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

5

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

6

manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist.

7

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

8

omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his

9

control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of

10

an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a

18

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already

19

considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134

20

F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a

21

strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare

22

Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and

23

reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

24

III.

25

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff requests the court to reconsider its finding in the screening order that Plaintiff
Plaintiff disagrees with the court’s

26

fails to state a cognizable claim in the Complaint.

27

assessment of his claims. At this stage of the proceedings, if Plaintiff disagrees with the court’s

28

screening order, his remedy is to file a First Amended Complaint clearly and succinctly stating
2

1

the allegations and claims upon which he wishes to proceed. Plaintiff was forewarned in the

2

screening order that if he does not file an amended complaint, the court will recommend that

3

this case be dismissed with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 18 at 15 ¶6.) Plaintiff

4

has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its

5

prior decision. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration shall be denied.

6

Plaintiff shall be granted additional time to comply with the screening order. After

7

Plaintiff files the First Amended Complaint, the court will screen it based on his allegations

8

stated therein.

9

IV.

CONCLUSION

10

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on May 21, 2014, is DENIED;

12

2.

Plaintiff is granted an extension of time to comply with the court’s screening

13
14

order of May 8, 2014;
3.

Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a

15

First Amended Complaint, pursuant to the court’s screening order of May 8,

16

2014; and

17

4.

18

Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint shall result in a recommendation
that this case be dismissed with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 23, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3