Brown v. Gipson et al

Filing 37

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of May 22, 2017 Order Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants re 36 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/16/17. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WILLIAM BROWN, Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 12 CONNIE GIPSON, et al., Defendants. 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:13-cv-02084-BAM PC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAY 22, 2017 ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (ECF No. 36) 14 Plaintiff William Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding se and in forma pauperis in 15 16 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a 17 United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 6.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion entitled, “Fair and Constructive Notice 18 19 Respectfully Opposing the Court’s Order not to Un-K.A.G.E. the 13th Amendment, et al.,” filed on 20 June 15, 2017. (ECF No. 36.) In his motion, Plaintiff objects to the Court’s May 22, 2017 order, (ECF 21 No. 33), to the extent it dismissed certain claims and defendants as described in that order. Thus, the 22 Court construes Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 60(b). 24 25 26 I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration a. Legal Standard Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies 27 relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and 28 is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . . ” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 1 1 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must 2 demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and 3 citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show 4 “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not 5 shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 6 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 7 unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there 8 is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH 9 & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted), and “[a] 10 party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and 11 recapitulation . . .” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision, U.S. v. 12 Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal quotation marks and 13 citation omitted). 14 b. Discussion 15 Plaintiff generally asserts that CDCR officials are biased against New Afrikan/Black prisoners 16 on the basis of race, religion and political views, as shown by the denial of the demands of the United 17 K.A.G.E Brothers, and as further outlined in his June 4, 2013 article in the SF Bay New newspaper, 18 attached as an exhibit. Plaintiff argues that he has therefore shown an implicit bias by the defendants 19 he named in this action. Thus, Plaintiff asserts that he sufficient pleaded that his federally-protected 20 rights were violated by: (1) C/O Guzman conducting a racist stop and frisk with evil intent; (2) the 21 stealing of green dots accounts, and the falsification of reports by Sergeant Gonzales related to the 22 green dots accounts; (3) when Director Matthew Cates, Warden Gibson, and other officials harassed 23 him and other prisoners and had him transferred, because he was allegedly engaging in activities likely 24 to incite violence and/or related to a prison or street gang, based on his political activities. 25 These conclusory allegations were considered in the May 23, 2017 screening order and in prior 26 screening orders, and found insufficient to state a claim. As described above, Plaintiff’s mere 27 disagreement with the Court’s prior ruling is not sufficient grounds for reconsideration. Plaintiff has 28 shown no new facts, circumstances, or evidence that would compel reconsideration here, nor any error 2 1 committed by the Court. His conclusory allegations that CDCR officials generally act out of bigotry 2 and bias are not sufficient to support any cognizable claim in this case. 3 4 Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to set forth grounds entitling him to reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing certain claims and defendants from this action. 5 II. 6 For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s motion seeking reconsideration of the Court’s May 7 Conclusion and Order 22, 2017 order, filed on June 15, 2017 (ECF No. 36), is HEREBY DENIED. 8 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara June 16, 2017 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?