Willard v. Neibert et al

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING 15 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Request for Temporary Restraining Order signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/21/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSHUA A. WILLARD,

12
13
14

15

Plaintiff,
v.
J. NEIBERT, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01951-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF
REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER
[ECF No. 15]

Plaintiff Joshua A. Willard is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the Court’s March
11, 2015, order denying his request for a temporary restraining order, filed March 26, 2015.
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,

22

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there

23

is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH

24

& Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “A party

25

seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and

26

recapitulation …” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision. United

27

States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2011). To succeed, a party

28

must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior
1

1

decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986),

2

aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). Additionally, pursuant

3

to this Court’s Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party must show what “new or

4

different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such

5

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j).

6

In his present motion, Plaintiff contends the alleged threats by Defendants violate his

7

constitutional rights and Defendants have threatened to him again. The Court considered and

8

previously rejected Plaintiff’s argument, and reconsideration is not a vehicle by which to obtain a

9

second bite at the apple; it is reserved for extraordinary circumstances. United States v. Westlands

10

Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001); see also In re Pacific Far East Lines, Inc.,

11

889 F.2d 242, 250 (9th Cir. 1989) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) may provide relief where parties were

12

confronted with extraordinary circumstances but it does not provide a second change for parties who

13

made deliberate choices). Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s decision is not grounds for

14

reconsideration.

15

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration must be DENIED.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: April 21, 2015

19

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2