Rivera v. Borden

Filing 15

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 13 ; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk to Reopen Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/17/15. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH M. RIVERA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
OFFICER BORDEN,

15

Defendant.

1:14-cv-01423-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 13.)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO REOPEN
CASE

16
17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND

20

Joseph M. Rivera (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

21

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on

22

September 10, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On February 20, 2015, the court dismissed this case, without

23

prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’ order of January 13, 2015, which

24

required Plaintiff to submit service documents to the court. (Doc. 10.)

25

On March 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to comply with the

26

court’s order, and submitted service documents to initiate service upon defendant Borden.

27

(Docs. 13, 14.) The court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for reconsideration of the

28

court’s order dismissing this action.
1

1

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

2

Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that

3

justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

A.

23

Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the court’s February 20, 2015 order dismissing this

24

case for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s January 13, 2015 order. Plaintiff argues

25

that he was unable to meet the court’s deadline because the prison was on lockdown for three

26

days, which delayed his access to the law library, and the law library was also closed for three

27

days due to holidays. Plaintiff asserts that he was unable to go to the law library for three

28

///
2

1

weeks after the court ordered him to respond. Plaintiff requests an extension of time to comply

2

with the court’s January 13, 2015 order.

3

B.

4

Plaintiff has set forth facts of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse

Discussion

5

its prior decision dismissing this case.

6

responding to the court’s January 13, 2015 order due to circumstances beyond his control.

7

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration shall be granted, and this case shall be

8

reopened.

9

III.

10
11

Plaintiff has shown that he was prevented from

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, the court finds good cause to reopen this case and initiate

service of process. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration shall be granted.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on March 9, 2015, is GRANTED;

14

2.

The Clerk of Court is directed to REOPEN this case;

15

3.

The court’s February 20, 2015 order dismissing this case, and the judgment

16
17

entered on February 20, 2015, are VACATED; and
4.

18

The court shall issue a separate order forthwith, directing the United States
Marshal to serve process in this action.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 17, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3