Matthew Powell v. Barron et al

Filing 47

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 42 Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Certain Claims for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim for Relief, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/10/16. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MATTHEW POWELL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

15
16
17

v.
M. BARRON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00089-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL OF
CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[ECF Nos. 42, 44]

Plaintiff Matthew Powell is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of

19

the United States Magistrate Judge on February 2, 2015. Local Rule 302.

20
21

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of certain
claims for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief, filed July 18, 2016.

22

I.

23

DISCUSSION

24

The motion for reconsideration is governed by Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

25

and Rule 230 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.

26

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

27

60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be

28

utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . . exist.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th
1

1

Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and

2

circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In

3

seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or

4

different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or

5

what other grounds exist for the motion.”

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

recapitulation . . . of that which was already considered by the court in rendering its decision,” U.S.

12

v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set

13

forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See

14

Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 646, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in

15

part and reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff merely asserts the same arguments as presented in

16
17

his second amended complaint. On May 26, 2016, the Court found, in a reasoned decision, that

18

Plaintiff’s allegations in the second amended complaint failed to give rise to a cognizable due process

19

based on the search of his cell or denial of his inmate grievances, and Plaintiff’s excessive force claim

20

was barred by the statute of limitations. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s

21

ruling is insufficient to warrant reconsideration. See Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 252 F.Supp.2d 936,

22

938 (D. Az. 2003) (a motion for reconsideration cannot be used to ask the Court to rethink what the

23

Court has already thought through merely because a party disagrees with the Court’s decision); see

24

also Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F.Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988) (mere disagreement with a

25

previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for

26

reconsideration shall be denied.

27

///

28

///
2

1

II.

2

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration,

3
4

filed July 18, 2016, is DENIED.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated:

8

August 10, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3