Manago v. Holland et al

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING 14 & 15 Motions for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/23/2015. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEWART MANAGO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:13-cv-01523-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Docs. 14, 15.)

K. HOLLAND, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

20

Stewart Manago (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

21

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action

22

on September 20, 2013. (Doc. 1.) On September 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed motion to proceed in

23

forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 4.)

24

order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 6.)

On October 8, 2013, the court issued an

25

On January 14, 2015, the court issued an order revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis

26

status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and dismissing the case, without prejudice to refiling

27

with the submission of the $400 filing fee. (Doc. 12.) On January 26, 2015 and February 17,

28

2015, Plaintiff filed motions for reconsideration of the court’s order. (Docs. 14, 15.)
1

1

II.

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

2

Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake,

3

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with

4

reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under

5

Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or

6

misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies

7

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

his control . . . .”

12

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

13

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

14

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

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In seeking

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

Here, Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature in his

27

motions for reconsideration to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, the

28

motions for reconsideration shall be denied.
2

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

4
5

Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration, filed on January 26, 2015 and February
17, 2015 are DENIED; and

2.

No further motions for reconsideration shall be considered in this case.

6
7

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 23, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3