Langley v. Tulare Police Department et al

Filing 115

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S "MOTION FOR REVIEW," signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/5/2019. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

Case No. 1:16-cv-00336-SKO

RANDY LANGLEY,
Plaintiff,

9

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
“MOTION FOR REVIEW”

v.

10
11

(Doc. 114)
JOSE COLEGIO,

12
13

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

14
15
16

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Randy Langley, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

17 civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking
18 sanctions as a result of alleged spoliation of evidence. (Doc. 105.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s
19 motion without prejudice on February 27, 2019, but ordered Defendant Jose Colegio to file a sworn
20 declaration, made under penalty of perjury, by a current representative of Tulare Police Department
21 with personal knowledge that “there is no video from Officer Colegio’s patrol car or body camera”
22 of the incident that occurred on March 25, 2015 that is the subject matter of this lawsuit, and “none
23 has ever existed, as the Tulare Police Department did not provide or have video cameras equipped
24 on patrol cars or worn by officers on that date.” (Doc. 110.) On March 8, 2019, Defendant and
25 Tulare Police Department each filed declarations to that effect. (Doc. 111.)
26

Plaintiff filed the present “Motion for Review” on March 28, 2019, in “opposition” to the

27 sworn declarations filed by Defendant and Tulare Police Department. (Doc. 114.) Plaintiff attaches
28 to his motion a provision of the California Fish and Game Code, section 856.5, titled “Patrol vehicle

1 mounted video and audio systems; Use; Standards; Recording retention policy; Access to
2 recording.”
3
4

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Although Plaintiff does not request any relief in his “Motion for Review,” the Court

5 construes it as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s February 27, 2019 order denying his
6 motion for sanctions. (Doc. 114.)
7

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

8 relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice
9 and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . . ” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531
10 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party
11 “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation
12 marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires
13 Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not
14 exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”
15

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

16 unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if
17 there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma
18 GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted),
19 and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's
20 decision, and recapitulation . . . .” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering
21 its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To
22 succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to
23 reverse its prior decision. See Kern–Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656,
24 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.
25 1987).
26
27

III.

DISCUSSION

The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions because it could not, on the record before

28 it, conclude that Defendant destroyed or failed to preserve video recordings of the incident at issue.
2

1 (Doc. 110.) Here, Plaintiff appears to assert that section 856.5 of the California Fish & Game Code
2 necessitates that the Court revisit its decision. Section 856.5, however, does not appear to apply to
3 Defendant, as he is not peace officer employed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
4 See Cal. Fish & G. Code §§ 856, 856.5. Even if section 856.5 were to apply to Defendant, it does
5 not require the use of mounted video and audio systems in patrol cars, as Plaintiff seems to suggest.
6 Instead, section 856.5 provides that such dashboard cameras “may” be installed and “may” be used
7 in patrol cars. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 856.5(a).
8

IV.

9

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the Court to

10 reverse its prior decision. Therefore, Plaintiff’s “Motion for Relief” seeking reconsideration of the
11 Court’s February 27, 2019 order denying his motion for sanctions (Doc. 114) is hereby DENIED.
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 Dated:
15

April 5, 2019

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

.