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)

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