Hazeltine v. Hicks et al

Filing 68

ORDER Denying Request for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 02/27/2017. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
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 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 67.) FRANCES HICKS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 19 Rick Hazeltine (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 20 with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with 21 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on July 6, 2015, on the following claim: Excessive 22 force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Ian Young, Benjamin 23 Gamez, Rashaun Casper, Julius Oldan, Porfirio Sanchez Negrete, David Avilia, Rickey Smith, 24 and Charles Ho (collectively “Defendants”). (ECF No. 27.) 25 On February 13, 2017, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion to declare a 26 conflict of interest with the Office of the California Attorney General. (ECF No. 66.) On 27 February 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections to the Court’s order, which the Court construes as 28 a motion for reconsideration of the order. (ECF No. 67.) 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 to declare a conflict of interest (ECF No. 47) 2 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 February 24, 2017, is DENIED; and 2. No further objections or motions for reconsideration concerning Plaintiff’s 8 motion to declare a conflict of interest (ECF No. 55) shall be considered by the 9 Court. 10 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 27, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?