Taylor et al v. Kramer, et al

Filing 45

ORDER DENYING 44 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/24/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JASON TAYLOR,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:14-cv-00939-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 44.)

NORM KRAMER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

20

Jason Taylor (APlaintiff@) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

21

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff and fifteen co-

22

plaintiffs filed the Complaint commencing this action on June 18, 2014. (Doc. 1.)

23

September 26, 2014, the court issued an order severing the plaintiffs’ claims and opening

24

fifteen new cases, one for each of the fifteen co-plaintiffs. (Doc. 41.) Plaintiff Jason Taylor is

25

now the sole Plaintiff proceeding with this case.

On

26

On July 10, 2014, before the plaintiffs’ claims were severed, the court issued an order

27

denying the plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of counsel, (Doc. 21), and on July 17, 2014,

28

issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ request to proceed as a class action, (Doc. 22). On
1

1

November 17, 2014, Plaintiff and the fifteen former co-plaintiffs filed a motion for

2

reconsideration of the orders denying appointment of counsel and denying class action

3

certification. (Doc. 44.)

4

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

his control . . . .”

15

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

16

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

17

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

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In seeking

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

The plaintiffs have not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce

2

the court to reverse its prior decisions. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration shall be

3

denied.

4

III.

5
6

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion for

reconsideration, filed on November 17, 2014, is DENIED.

7

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 24, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3