Flores v. Flores, et al.

Filing 30

ORDER STRIKING Motion for Reconsideration 27 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/21/15. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
SANTOS RENE FLORES,

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00577-MJS (PC)

12
Plaintiff,

13

FOR

(ECF No. 27)
S. FLORES, et al.,
Defendants

16
17

MOTION

v.

14
15

ORDER
STRIKING
RECONSIDERATION

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

19

brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is represented by counsel. (ECF No.

20

13.) The parties consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 7 & 17.)

21

Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court found

22

that Plaintiff’s action was untimely, and on January 20, 2015 the case was dismissed

23

without leave to amend. (ECF No. 25.)

24

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s February 19, 2015 Motion for Reconsideration (ECF

25

No. 27.). Plaintiff filed the motion pro se. Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 28.)

26

Plaintiff filed additional records in support of his motion but no reply. (ECF No. 29.) The

27

matter is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

28

1

II.

2
3
4
5
6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) allows the Court to relieve a party from
an order due to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” In seeking
reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show “what new or
different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not
shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

LEGAL STANDARD

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn
Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009),
and “‘[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the
Court’s decision, and ‘recapitulation . . .’” of that which was already considered by the
court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111,
1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp.
834, 856 (D. N.J. 1992)).
III.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court’s order dismissing his case on statute

of limitations grounds.

Plaintiff submits numerous medical records to support his

position that the statute of limitations period should be tolled due to his mental illness
and/or incapacity.
Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not cited any new authority that would
warrant reconsideration of this Court’s order.
Plaintiff is represented by counsel in this action. (ECF No. 13.) Unless and until
Plaintiff’s counsel files a motion to withdrawal, Plaintiff may not file motions on his own
behalf. Plaintiff’s motion is improper and will therefore be STRICKEN.
Even if properly filed, Plaintiff has not presented a basis for reconsideration. The
Court noted in its ruling granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss that even if Plaintiff had
2

1
2
3
4
5

submitted the necessary medical records to support his argument at the time, it would
not change the Court’s ruling.
IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 27) is

HEREBY STRICKEN.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:

April 21, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3