Garraway v. Ciufo et al

Filing 38

ORDER DENYING 36 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/31/2019. (Jessen, A)

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

1:17-cv-00533-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 36.)

vs.
JACQUILINE CIUFO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiff Mitchell Garraway is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

21

with this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

22

This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s original Complaint filed on April 17, 2017, against

23

defendants Jacquiline Ciufo (Unit Manager), Corrections Officer K. Miller, and Lieutenant J.

24

Zaragoza (collectively, “Defendants”), for failure to protect Plaintiff under the Eighth

25

Amendment.

26

On January 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the court’s order issued on January
The court construes Plaintiff’s opposition as a motion for

27

15, 2019.

28

reconsideration of the court’s order.

(ECF No. 36.)

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

5

F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party

6

“must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation

7

marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires

8

Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did

9

not exist or 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

11

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

12

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,

13

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

14

and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a

15

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already

16

considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d

17

1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly

18

convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist.

19

v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in

20

part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

21

III.

DISCUSSION

22

The court’s order in question granted Defendants’ motion for stay and extension of time

23

in light of a lapse in appropriations due to the federal government’s shutdown. (ECF No. 34.)

24

Because of the shutdown Department of Justice attorneys, including defense counsel in this case,

25

were prohibited from working during the shutdown except in very limited circumstances. The

26

court granted Defendants a stay of their time to respond to discovery until funds are restored to the

27

Department of Justice by Congress, and a thirty-day extension of time in which to respond to

28

discovery received after the appropriations lapse.
2

1

Plaintiff raises unfounded speculation that the court’s order will allow the Bureau of Prisons

2

time to purge documents from its computerized system of records which he claims will deny him

3

crucial evidence to support his claims. Plaintiff also argues that Defendants already had ample time

4

to produce the documents requested by Plaintiff on December 11, 2018, and they should not be

5

allowed additional time.

6

Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court

7

to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration shall be denied.

8

IV.

9
10

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration, filed on January 28, 2019, is DENIED.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 31, 2019

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3