Starrett v. Mimms, et al.

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's March 7, 2017 Order signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/28/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIKE STARRETT, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. MARGARET MIMMS, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:15-cv-01582-SAB (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S MARCH 7, 2017, ORDER [ECF No. 30] Plaintiff Mike Starrett is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s March 7, 20 2017, order granting Defendants forty-five days to respond to the complaint, filed March 24, 2017. 21 I. 22 DISCUSSION 23 Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 24 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. 25 Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature 26 to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of 27 Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 28 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 1 This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s claims under the First, Sixth and Fourteenth 1 2 Amendments for damages against Defendants Margaret Mimms, Gattie, Michelle Lefors, Campbell, 3 Rodriguez, Dar, Hernandez, John Doe A (related to February 24, 2016, incident), and against John 4 Doe B for promulgating and authorizing an alleged unconstitutional “inmate correspondence” policy. Although Defendants waived service of the summons and complaint, Defendants did not 5 6 timely respond to the complaint. On February 22, 2017, the Court issued an order as to why entry of 7 default should be entered. On March 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response to the order. On March 7, 8 2017, Defendants requested additional time to respond to the complaint. On March 7, 2017, based on 9 counsel’s representations set forth in the declaration filed under penalty of perjury and on the basis of 10 good cause, the Court granted Defendants forty-five days to respond to the complaint. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s March 7, 2017, order and contends that the lack 11 12 of timely “response shows a disturbing pattern of neglect,” and requests the Court enter default against 13 Defendants. Plaintiff has failed to set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the 14 Court to reverse its March 7, 2017, order. Counsel for Defendants declared under penalty of perjury 15 that the failure to file a response was inadvertent and was not a common mistake by the County or its 16 Department, and Plaintiff fails to present evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, there is no basis for 17 the Court to reverse its March 7, 2017, order, and Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: 21 March 28, 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?