Brown v. Gipson et al
Filing
84
ORDER Denying 81 Motion to Alter or Amend a Previous Judgment signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 08/14/2018. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
WILLIAM BROWN,
9
10
11
12
Plaintiff,
v.
W. RASLEY,
Case No. 1:13-cv-02084-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO ALTER OR AMEND A PREVIOUS
JUDGMENT
[Doc Nos. 81, 82]
Defendant.
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff William Brown is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend a previous judgment,
17
with a declaration in support, filed on May 1, 2018. (Doc. Nos. 81, 82.) Plaintiff argues that the
18
Court should reconsider its order issued on January 10, 2018. (Doc. Nos. 63, 79) In Doc. No. 79,
19
the undersigned adopted findings and recommendations issued by the assigned United States
20
Magistrate Judge, and ordered that this case proceed solely on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant
21
Rasley for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, excessive force in violation of the
22
Eighth Amendment, and conversion. All other claims and defendants were dismissed.
23
Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies
24
relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice
25
and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . . ” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531
26
F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party
27
“must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal
28
quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j)
1
1
requires a party to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which
2
did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the
3
motion.”
4
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
5
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed
6
clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,
7
Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks
8
and citations omitted), and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a
9
disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . .” of that which was already
10
considered by the Court in rendering its decision, U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d
11
1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
12
Here, Plaintiff seeks for the Court to review his allegations in his complaint and
13
declarations submitted in support, and argues at length that he sufficiently pleaded facts in
14
support of the dismissed claims. Plaintiff’s pleadings were reviewed in issuing the prior order,
15
and he has shown no grounds to reconsider the dismissal of the non-cognizable claims and
16
defendants.
17
Plaintiff also contends that he has newly discovered evidence which brings more merit to
18
his claims. Plaintiff has not shown whether any prior dismissal should be reconsidered based on
19
newly discovered evidence. He has not shown that he can now allege additional facts sufficient
20
to state a claim that he did not previously plead which is cognizable in this suit.
21
22
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend a previous judgment (Doc. No. 81) is
HEREBY DENIED.
23
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 14, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
26
27
28
2
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?