Garraway v. Ciufo et al
Filing
151
ORDER DENYING 147 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/22/2022. (Maldonado, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MITCHELL GARRAWAY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
1:17-cv-00533-ADA-GSA (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 147.)
JACQUILINE CIUFO, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
I.
BACKGROUND
21
Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights
22
action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This case now proceeds
23
with Plaintiff’s original Complaint filed on April 17, 2017, against defendants Jacqueline Ciufo
24
(Unit Manager), K. Miller (Corrections Officer), and Lieutenant (Lt.) J. Zaragoza (collectively,
25
“Defendants”), for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.)
26
On September 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order
27
issued on September 13, 2022, which granted Defendants’ September 8, 2022 ex parte application
28
to continue the pretrial conference and jury trial in this case. (ECF No. 147.)
1
1
II.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
2
Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies
3
relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice
4
and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d
5
737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must
6
demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks
7
and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff
8
to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or
9
were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”
10
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,
11
unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if
12
there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma
13
GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted),
14
and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s
15
decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering
16
its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To
17
succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to
18
reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656,
19
665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.
20
1987).
21
Plaintiff’s Motion
22
Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the court’s order issued on September 13, 2022, which
23
granted Defendants’ September 8, 2022 ex parte application to continue the pretrial conference and
24
jury trial. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ request to continue the hearing and trial date based on
25
defense counsel’s conflicts with upcoming international travel and scheduled trial in another case,
26
did not show good cause to continue the pretrial conference and jury trial.
27
28
Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to
reverse its prior decision. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration shall be denied.
2
1
2
3
III.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration, filed on September 21, 2022, is DENIED.
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 22, 2022
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?