Shehee v. Nguyen et al

Filing 63

ORDER DENYING 58 Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Copy Service; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk to Resend Plaintiff Copy of ECF No. 53 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/1/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01154-LJO-MJS (PC)

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

11

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
DENYING COPY SERVICE

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

NGUYEN, et al.,

14

(ECF No. 58)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO RESEND
PLAINTIFF COPY OF ECF NO. 53

Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case proceeds on Plaintiff’s third
amended complaint against Defendants Audrey Long, April Leavens, Long Moua, and
Kim Nguyen for denying Plaintiff a cane and access to educational services in violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Eighth Amendment of the United
States Constitution. (ECF No. 34.)
Plaintiff is currently detained in the Fresno County Jail (ECF No. 13) but
complains of acts that occurred at Coalinga State Hospital in Coalinga, California. On
November 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed two motions requesting an order from the Court
directing the County Sheriff’s designees to allow Plaintiff access to “copies” for the
purposes of filing motions, discovery, and other documents associated with these
proceedings. (ECF Nos. 44 & 45.) The Court construed these motions as requests for
1

1

injunctive relief. On December 27, 2016, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case

2

issued findings and recommendations to deny both motions as outside the scope of this

3

litigation. (ECF No. 53.) Receiving no objections from Plaintiff, this Court adopted those

4

findings and recommendations on February 3, 3017. (ECF No. 56.) On February 13,

5

2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for “Late Reinstat[ment]” of Plaintiff’s motions requesting

6

copy service. (ECF No. 58.) He also requested the Court resend a copy of the

7

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations.1
The Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as a motion for reconsideration of the order

8
9

denying Plaintiff copy service.

10

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

11

circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence,

12

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

13

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

14

“A motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence

15

for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised in earlier litigation.” Id.

16

Furthermore, “‘[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement

17

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

18

by the court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d

19

1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F.

20

Supp. 834, 856 (D. N.J. 1992)). Similarly, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party seeking

21

reconsideration show that “new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist

22

which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds

23

exist for the motion . . . .”

24

Plaintiff presents no new facts or circumstances warranting the reconsideration of

25

his request for copy service, and Plaintiff was previously advised that the pendency of

26

this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over state officials in general or over the

27

1

28

The copy of the filing available on CM/ECF is nearly illegible do to the poor quality of the scan. The Court
thus reviewed the hard copy of Plaintiff’s motion, available with the Clerk of Court.

2

1

relief requested in Plaintiff's motion that is not the subject of the operative complaint.

2

Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United

3

States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). As such, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration

4

must be denied. However, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to resend the

5

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations to Plaintiff.

6

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate ECF Nos. 44 and 45, construed as a motion for

8
9

reconsideration (ECF No. 58), is DENIED; and
2. The Clerk of Court shall resend Plaintiff a copy of ECF No. 53.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

May 1, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3