Pulido v. Lunes et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING Motion for Reconsideration 10 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/17/15. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE J. PULIDO, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. 1:14-cv-01174-GSA-PC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 10.) M. LUNES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 21 Jose J. Pulido (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 22 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 23 commencing this action on July 28, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On August 15, 2014, Plaintiff consented 24 to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no 25 other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 7.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of 26 the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all 27 proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local 28 Rule Appendix A(k)(3). 1 1 On March 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s orders 2 denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and motion for preliminary injunctive 3 relief. (Doc. 10.) 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 Here, Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature in his 2 motion for reconsideration to induce the court to reverse its prior decisions. Therefore, the 3 motion for reconsideration shall be denied. 4 III. 5 6 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on March 13, 2015, is DENIED. 7 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 17, 2015 /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

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?