Cranford v. Okpala
Filing
38
ORDER Denying 37 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of 36 Court's May 2, 2016 Order Denying His Motion to Amend and/or Supplement the Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/13/16. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ARCHIE CRANFORD,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
ANTONIA OKPALA,
15
Defendant.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S MAY 2, 2016,
ORDER DENYING HIS MOTION TO AMEND
AND/OR SUPPLEMENT THE COMPLAINT
[ECF Nos. 36, 37]
Plaintiff Archie Cranford is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action
17
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions
19
Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison
20
Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000).
21
I.
22
BACKGROUND
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “objections” to the Court’s May 2, 2016, order denying
23
24
his motion to amend and/or supplement the complaint, filed May 12, 2016.
On May 2, 2016, the undersigned denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend and/or supplement the
25
26
complaint finding Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that supplement was justified under Federal Rule of
27
Civil Procedure 15(d). (ECF No. 36.)
28
///
1
1
2
II.
3
DISCUSSION
4
The motion for reconsideration is governed by Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
5
and Rule 230 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.
6
Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies relief. Rule
7
60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be
8
utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . . exist.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th
9
Cir. 2008)(internal quotation marks omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and
10
circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In
11
seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or
12
different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or
13
what other grounds exist for the motion.”
14
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,
15
unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there
16
is an intervening change in controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., v. Mucos Pharma GmbH &
17
Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted), and “[a] party
18
seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the court’s decision, and
19
recapitulation . . . of that which was already considered by the court in rendering its decision,” U.S.
20
v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set
21
forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See
22
Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 646, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in
23
part and reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
24
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff merely asserts the same arguments as presented in
25
his motion to amend and/or supplement the complaint. The Court previously considered such
26
arguments when it denied Plaintiff’s motion, and Plaintiff has therefore failed to meet the standard set
27
forth above for reconsideration. See Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 252 F.Supp.2d 936, 938 (D. Az.
28
2003) (a motion for reconsideration cannot be used to ask the Court to rethink what the Court has
2
1
already thought through merely because a party disagrees with the Court’s decision); see also Leong v.
2
Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F.Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988) (mere disagreement with a previous
3
order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
4
must be denied.
5
III.
6
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
7
8
of the Court’s May 2, 2016, order denying his motion to amend and/or supplement the complaint is
9
DENIED.
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated:
13
May 13, 2016
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?