Moran v. Ola et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 23 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Nicolas Moran, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/3/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 NICOLAS MORAN, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 v. A. OLA, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:14-cv-01487-SAB (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HIS DUE PROCESS CLAIM PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60 [ECF No. 23] 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 17 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF 18 No. 6.) 19 On September 7, 2017, following several attempts by Plaintiff to state a claim, this action was 20 dismissed for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 21.) Judgment 21 was entered accordingly that same day. (ECF No. 22.) 22 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking reconsideration of the final order in 23 this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, filed on September 28, 2017. (ECF No. 24 23.) 25 Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies 26 relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and 27 is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . . ” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 28 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an 1 1 order, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are 2 claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds 3 exist for the motion.” Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. 4 Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 5 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a 6 strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare 7 Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), rev’d in part on other 8 grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 9 Plaintiff argues that he sufficiently pleaded a due process violation because as a result of not 10 having a fair hearing, he has been “deprived of his so needed pain medication. . . .” (ECF No. 23, at p. 11 4.) As was explained to Plaintiff, the deprivation of his preferred narcotic pain medication is not a 12 protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause. In other words, to bring a claim that Plaintiff 13 was not provided sufficient procedural protections with regards to the allegedly false charges of 14 medication hoarding, Plaintiff must establish that a protected interest was at stake. Plaintiff has failed 15 to do so here. Plaintiff’s motion does not show any error, change in the law, or new circumstances 16 requiring the Court to reconsider its prior rulings in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 23) is HEREBY DENIED. 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: 21 October 3, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?