Klahn v. Wasco State Prison et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying Motion for Reconsideration re 10 , 11 , 13 signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/1/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

DANIEL P. KLAHN, Sr,

10
11

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:16-cv-00342-SKO (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
(Docs. 10, 11, 13)

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,
Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, Daniel P. Klahn, Sr., is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On January 27, 2017, the
Complaint was screened and dismissed with leave to amend since it violated Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 8 and 18. (Doc. 8.) On February 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration of the January 27, 2017 order. (Doc. 11.) For the reasons discussed below,
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff Fails To Show New Evidence or Clear Error To Justify Reconsideration
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that A[o]n motion and upon
such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered in
time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or misconduct by

28
1

1

an opposing party; . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of judgment.@

2

Motions under Rule 60(b) "must be made within a reasonable time -- and for reasons (1), (2), and

3

(3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding."

4

Relief under Rule 60 “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest

5

injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances” exist. Harvest v. Castro,

6

531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted) (addressing

7

reconsideration under Rules 60(b)(1)-(5)). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and

8

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

9

Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what new or different

10

facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown" previously,

11

"what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown"

12

at the time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered.

13

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

14

circumstances, unless the [ ] court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear

15

error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise

16

arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised

17

earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d

18

873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

19

The Complaint in this action was dismissed because it violated Rules 8 and 18 of the

20

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 8.) The order set forth the legal standards to assist

21

Plaintiff in framing his allegations in an amended pleading -- without any comment on his factual

22

allegations. (Id.) Apparently, Plaintiff misconstrued the statements of legal standards in the

23

screening order as criticizing his factual allegations, instead of having been provided for his

24

guidance. Plaintiff’s motion argues the merits of the factual basis for his claims and asserts that

25

he is entitled to relief -- which was specifically not addressed in the order that dismissed the

26

Complaint. This does not demonstrate new evidence, commission of clear error, or an

27

intervening change in the controlling law upon which to find that Plaintiff’s original Complaint

28
2

1

no longer violates Rules 8 and 18 so as to justify reconsideration. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc.,

2

571 F.3d at 880.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 303, this

3
4

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

5

Court finds the order dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend, that issued on January 27,

6

2017, to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

7

III. ORDER
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration,

8
9

filed on February 13, 2017, (Doc. 11), is DENIED and Plaintiff’s request to appear by telephone

10

at the hearing on his motion for reconsideration, filed on March 1, 2017, (Doc. 14), is

11

DISREGARDED since moot.1

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 1, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

Plaintiff is reminded that, per the First Informational Order, “[a]ll pre-trial motions will be submitted for decision
based solely upon the written papers and without a hearing. Local Rule 230(l). Local Rule 230(l) sets out the
schedule for briefing motions.” (Doc. 3, p. 5.) Any further hearings that Plaintiff schedules in this action will be
summarily vacated.

3