Alfonso Hall v. Smith et al

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 19 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/12/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
ALFONSO HALL,

Case No. 1:15-cv-00860-BAM-PC

10

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff,
11
v.

(ECF NO. 19)

12
D. SMITH, et. al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15

Plaintiff Alfonso Hall is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

16 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s objection, which the Court
17 construes as a motion for reconsideration, of the June 1, 2016, order denying Plaintiff’s motion
18 for the appointment of counsel and motion for class certification. (ECF No. 18.)
19 I.

Relevant Procedural History

20

On June 1, 2016, an order was entered, denying Plaintiff’s motion to certify this action as

21 a class action and denying Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel to represent the
22 potential class. On June 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the order denying his request to
23 certify this action as a class action and denying his request for counsel. (ECF No. 19.) The
24 Court construes Plaintiff’s objections as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal
25 Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
26 II.

Legal Standard

27

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

28 Procedure and Rule 230 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern

1

1 District of California. Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any
2 reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to
3 prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . . .
4 exist.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
5 The moving party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id.
6 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local
7 Rule 230(j) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed
8 to exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”
9

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

10 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed
11 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc.,
12 v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and
13 citations omitted), and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement
14 with the court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . of that which was already considered by the
15 court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 111, 1131 (E.D.
16 Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts of law of such a strongly convincing nature
17 to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.

See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

18 Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 646, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on
19 other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
20 III.

Analysis

21

Plaintiff argues that in the order denying his requests, the Court erroneously noted that

22 this action proceeds on a claim of excessive force against a single defendant, when in fact he is
23 proceeding on claims of excessive force, failure to protect, and unconstitutional conditions of
24 confinement against four defendants. On December 16, 2015, an order was entered, finding that
25 the complaint stated a claim for relief against Defendant Smith for excessive force, but failed to
26 state any other claims for relief. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff filed a first, then a second amended
27 complaint, which is awaiting screening by the Court. Assuming Plaintiff does state a claim
28 against the remaining Defendants on all of his claims, the Court’s analysis would not change.

2

1 The Court denied the appointment of class counsel on the ground that this action does not
2 involve allegations or claims that would ordinarily be eligible for class certification pursuant to
3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). Plaintiff, a non-attorney, may bring his own claims, but
4 he may not represent others.
5 IV.

Conclusion and Order

6

Plaintiff has not met the high burden of coming forward with evidence of law or facts of

7 such a strongly convincing nature as to induce the Court to reverse the order denying his request
8 for class certification and the appointment of class counsel. The allegations of the complaint
9 indicate a single instance of excessive force and placement in a management cell. Plaintiff’s
10 requests for class certification and appointment of class counsel were properly denied.
11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of

12 the June 1, 2016, order denying his requests for class certification and appointment of class
13 counsel is DENIED.
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

September 12, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

3