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)

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