Crew v. Commissioner of Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING 20 Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Compel Discovery Evidence as Premature signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/15/2016. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

1:16-cv-00590-LJO-BAM (PC)

DAVID CREW,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY EVIDENCE AS
PREMATURE
(Doc. 20)

Defendant.

17
18
19

Plaintiff David Crew (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 22, 2016, Plaintiff

21

filed a motion to compel his health information that supports his allegations. (Doc. 17.) On

22

August 24, 2016, the Magistrate Judge to whom this matter was referred denied that motion,

23

without prejudice, as premature. (Doc. 18.) The Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff’s complaint,

24

had recently been dismissed for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend, and thus no

25

defendants had been served and discovery had not yet been opened. (Id. at 2.)

26

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion entitled, “Motion to Compel Discovery

27

Evidence ‘Premature,’” filed September 12, 2016. (Doc. 20.) Plaintiff states that he requests the

28

undersigned to reconsider his motion on the grounds that he has to depend on the prison officials
1

1

to provide him with information concerning this matter, and thus he relies on them for any

2

information and legal documents or access to legal materials. The Court construes this motion as

3

a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(6).

4

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order

5

for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be ‘used sparingly as an equitable remedy

6

to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances’” exist.

7

Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham &

8

Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury

9

and circumstances beyond his control.” Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103. In seeking reconsideration of

10

an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show “what new or different facts or circumstances

11

are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other

12

grounds exist for the motion.” L.R. 230(j). “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted,

13

absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the ... court is presented with newly discovered

14

evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.”

15

Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009).

16

Plaintiff has not presented sufficient grounds for reconsideration of the order denying his

17

motion to compel discovery. As the Magistrate Judge correctly found, this case has not entered

18

the discovery stage. Since that order was issued, Plaintiff has filed a first amended complaint,

19

which will be screened in due course.

20
21

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the order
denying his motion to compel discovery, (ECF No. 20), is DENIED.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

September 15, 2016

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

2