Jones v. Anorld et al

Filing 8

ORDER DENYING 7 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/3/17. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD DAVID JONES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. 14 Case No. 1:16-cv-00473-LJO-BAM (PC) ARNOLD, et al., (ECF No. 7) 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Edward David Jones (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this 17 18 civil action on April 1, 2016. On August 4, 2016, the Court dismissed this action as duplicative 19 of case number 1:16-cv-00469-DAD-BAM. (Doc. 3.) Judgment was entered accordingly that 20 same day. (Doc. 4.) On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for acknowledgments. (Doc. 21 5.) The Court construed it as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure Rule 60(b)(6), and denied the motion. (Doc. 6.) 23 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion filed on April 19, 2017. The motion is 24 difficult to understand, containing unrelated statements about deliberate indifference, reprisals, 25 Valley Fever cocci, an incident involving a fight between inmates,1 issues involving medical care, 26 administrative segregation unit placement, negligence, lack of supervision of inmates by floor 27 staff officers, and other issues. The matters discussed in the motion appear to have occurred 28 1 It is unclear whether Plaintiff is referring to an incident involving himself, or between other inmates. 1 1 during March 2017. Plaintiff asks for the Court to consider “the Defendants deliberated 2 intentions, obstruction, and negligences.” (Doc. 7, at p. 2) (errors in original). No specific form 3 of relief is requested. 4 To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s orders dismissing this action as 5 duplicative and denying his earlier motion for reconsideration, (Docs. 3, 6), Plaintiff has 6 presented no grounds for reconsideration of the dismissal of this action. See Marlyn 7 Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). 8 This action has been closed for eight months when Plaintiff filed this motion. The motion 9 concerns events occurring long after the action was closed, and that are unrelated to this case. 10 The Court will not entertain another motion to reconsider the judgment in this case based on 11 arguments the Court has previously rejected, nor will it entertain motions on matters completely 12 unrelated to this case. To the extent Plaintiff believes his rights have been violated after this 13 action was terminated, the appropriate procedure for pursuing those claims is to file a new 14 complaint. 15 16 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on April 19, 2017 (Doc. 7), is HEREBY DENIED. 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ May 3, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 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?