Briones v. Pleasant Valley State Prison et al

Filing 14

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Reconsideration As Moot (Doc. 13 ), ORDER Denying Request For Free Copies (Doc. 12 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/28/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHNNY GAVINO BRIONES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

vs.

1:14-cv-00750-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION AS MOOT
(Doc. 13.)

PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR FREE
COPIES
et al.,
(Doc. 12.)
Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Johnny Gavino Briones (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

22

pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the

23

Complaint commencing this action on May 19, 2014. (Doc. 1.)

24

On July 10, 2014, the court entered findings and recommendations to dismiss this action

25

for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order to submit a signed application to proceed

26

in forma pauperis. (Doc. 6.) On August 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and

27

recommendations. (Doc. 8.) On August 5, 2014, the court issued an order striking Plaintiff’s

28

objections for lack of signature. (Doc. 9.)
1

1

On August 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order

2

striking Plaintiff’s objections. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff also filed a request for the court to provide

3

him with a free copy of the objections, so that he can ascertain whether the objections were

4

signed. (Doc. 12.)
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and request for copies are now before the court.

5
6

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

7

Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake,

8

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with

9

reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under

10

Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or

11

misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies

12

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to

13

prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .”

14

exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and

15

citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond

16

his control . . . .”

17

reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different

18

facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such

19

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In seeking

20

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

21

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

22

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,

23

Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations

24

marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a

25

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already

26

considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134

27

F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a

28

strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare
2

1

Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and

2

reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

3

Plaintiff contends that he did not submit unsigned objections. Plaintiff argues that if the

4

court’s order striking the objections stands, he will be severely prejudiced because he will have

5

lost the opportunity to seek justice by proceeding with this action. Plaintiff requests to be

6

allowed to re-submit the objections.

7

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is moot, because on August 18, 2014, Plaintiff

8

submitted a signed application to proceed in forma pauperis, and on August 21, 2014, the court

9

vacated the findings and recommendations and granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in

10

forma pauperis. (Docs. 10, 11.) Thus, the fact that Plaintiff’s objections were stricken does not

11

affect Plaintiff’s ability to litigate this action.

12

recommendations were vacated, it would be futile for Plaintiff to re-submit his objections at

13

this stage of the proceedings. Plaintiff suffers no prejudice as a result of the court’s order

14

striking his objections. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration shall be denied.

15

III.

Moreover, because the findings and

REQUEST FOR FREE COPIES

16

Plaintiff requests a free copy of his objections. In light of the court’s ruling herein, and

17

the fact that the court’s findings and recommendations were vacated, Plaintiff does not require

18

a copy of his objections to support his motion for reconsideration or oppose the findings and

19

recommendations. Based on these facts, the court finds no good cause to provide Plaintiff with

20

a free copy of his objections.

21

Plaintiff is advised that the Clerk does not ordinarily provide free copies of case

22

documents to parties. The Clerk charges $.50 per page for copies of documents. See 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1914(a). Copies of up to twenty pages may be made by the Clerk's Office at this Court upon

24

written request and prepayment of the copy fees. The fact that the Court has granted leave for

25

Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis does not entitle him to free copies of documents from the

26

Court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2250, the Clerk is not required to furnish copies without cost to an

27

indigent petitioner except by order of the judge.

28

///
3

1

To request a copy of the objections at this juncture, Plaintiff must submit a request in

2

writing to the Clerk, a self-addressed envelope affixed with sufficient postage, and prepayment

3

of copy costs to the Clerk. The objections, Document No. 8 on the court’s docket, are two

4

pages long. Plaintiff is advised that in the future, he should keep a copy of any document he

5

submits to the Court.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for free copies shall be denied.

6
7

IV.

CONCLUSION

8

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1.

10
11

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on August 20, 2014, is DENIED as
moot; and

2.

Plaintiff’s request for free copies, filed on August 20, 2014, is DENIED.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 28, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
4