Jones v. Anorld et al
ORDER DENYING 7 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/3/17. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EDWARD DAVID JONES,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
Case No. 1:16-cv-00473-LJO-BAM (PC)
ARNOLD, et al.,
(ECF No. 7)
Plaintiff Edward David Jones (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this
civil action on April 1, 2016. On August 4, 2016, the Court dismissed this action as duplicative
of case number 1:16-cv-00469-DAD-BAM. (Doc. 3.) Judgment was entered accordingly that
same day. (Doc. 4.) On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for acknowledgments. (Doc.
5.) The Court construed it as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 60(b)(6), and denied the motion. (Doc. 6.)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion filed on April 19, 2017. The motion is
difficult to understand, containing unrelated statements about deliberate indifference, reprisals,
Valley Fever cocci, an incident involving a fight between inmates,1 issues involving medical care,
administrative segregation unit placement, negligence, lack of supervision of inmates by floor
staff officers, and other issues. The matters discussed in the motion appear to have occurred
It is unclear whether Plaintiff is referring to an incident involving himself, or between other inmates.
during March 2017. Plaintiff asks for the Court to consider “the Defendants deliberated
intentions, obstruction, and negligences.” (Doc. 7, at p. 2) (errors in original). No specific form
of relief is requested.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s orders dismissing this action as
duplicative and denying his earlier motion for reconsideration, (Docs. 3, 6), Plaintiff has
presented no grounds for reconsideration of the dismissal of this action. See Marlyn
Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009).
This action has been closed for eight months when Plaintiff filed this motion. The motion
concerns events occurring long after the action was closed, and that are unrelated to this case.
The Court will not entertain another motion to reconsider the judgment in this case based on
arguments the Court has previously rejected, nor will it entertain motions on matters completely
unrelated to this case. To the extent Plaintiff believes his rights have been violated after this
action was terminated, the appropriate procedure for pursuing those claims is to file a new
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on April 19, 2017 (Doc. 7), is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
May 3, 2017
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
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?