Pierce v. The US Government and Its Officers as Federal Judges et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER re Plaintiff's 5 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/05/2016. (Flores, E)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
SEAVON PIERCE,
6
7
8
9
1:16-cv-1361-LJO-BAM
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 5)
v.
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND ITS
OFFICERS AS FEDERAL JUDGES, et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
12
The Court recently denied Plaintiff Seavon Pierce’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
13 dismissed this case subject to re-filing accompanied by the $400.00 filing fee. Doc. 3. Plaintiff now
14 moves for reconsideration of that order.
15
The motion for reconsideration is governed by Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
16 and Rule 230 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Rule
60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies relief. Rule
17
60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be
18
utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . . exist.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th
19 Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and
20 circumstances beyond his control.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking
21 reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or
22
circumstances are claimed to exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds
exist for the motion.”
23
24
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,
unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is
25 an intervening change in controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co.,
1
1
571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), and “[a] party
2
seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the court’s decision, and
3
recapitulation . . . of that which was already considered by the court in rendering its decision.” United
States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must
4
set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See
5
Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 646, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), rev’d on other
6
grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
7
8
Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Plaintiff has made no showing that would justify reconsideration
of the Court’s order.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
October 5, 2016
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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?