Hazeltine v. Hicks et al

Filing 54

ORDER DENYING Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/27/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICK HAZELTINE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 50.)

FRANCES HICKS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Rick Hazeltine (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

22

On July 29, 2016, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of

23

subpoenas duces tecum. (ECF No. 48.) On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for

24

reconsideration of the order. (ECF No. 49.) On August 26, 2016, the Court issued an order

25

denying the motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 50.)

26

On September 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the order denying the motion for

27

reconsideration.

28

reconsideration of the court’s order denying Plaintiff’s prior motion for reconsideration.

(ECF No. 52.)

The Court construes the objections as a motion for

1

1

II.

MOTION 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

motion for reconsideration to induce the Court to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, the

28

motion for reconsideration shall be denied. Moreover, no further objections or motions for
2

1

reconsideration concerning Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of subpoenas duces tecum (ECF No.

2

47) shall be considered by the Court.

3

III.

CONCLUSION

4

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

6
7

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on September 9, 2016, is DENIED;
and

2.

No further objections or motions for reconsideration concerning Plaintiff’s

8

motion for issuance of subpoenas duces tecum (ECF No. 47) shall be considered

9

by the Court.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 27, 2016

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3