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)

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