Francisco Argon v. Garibay et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying 31 Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/16/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANCISCO ARGON,

12
13

No. 1:17-cv-00875-DAD-MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

14

G. BONNIE GARIBAY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

(Doc. No. 31)

16
17
18

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On February 2, 2018, the undersigned adopted the assigned magistrate judge’s findings

20

and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice for

21

failure to state a cognizable claim for relief, and directed the Clerk of the Court to close the case.

22

(Doc. No. 25.)

23

On March 7, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for physical examination pursuant to Rule 26 of

24

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requesting that the court order a magnetic resonance

25

imaging (“MRI”) of plaintiff. (Doc. No. 29.) On April 9, 2018, magistrate judge denied the

26

motion. (Doc. No. 30 at 2.) The magistrate judge found that discovery in this case had never

27

opened and could not now be pursued where plaintiff’s complaint had been dismissed and

28

judgment entered in favor of defendants. (Id.)
1

1

On April 23, 2018, plaintiff filed a document titled “Opposition to Dismiss Order Denying

2

Motion for Physical Examination.” (Doc. No. 31.) Therein, plaintiff repeats his request for a

3

medical examination and a MRI, arguing that he “need[s] the court know [sic] about the Damages

4

the Defendants did to the plaintiff.” (Id. at 3.) The court construes this filing as a motion for

5

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for physical

6

examination.

7

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

8

district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment

9

on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered

10

evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has

11

been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion

12

under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3), “no

13

more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R.

14

Civ. P. 60(c).

15

Relief under Rule 60 “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest

16

injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances” exist. Harvest v. Castro,

17

531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted) (addressing

18

reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1)–(5)). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and

19

circumstances beyond his control.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further,

20

Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that in moving for reconsideration of an order

21

denying or granting a prior motion, a party must show “what new or different facts or

22

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown” previously, “what

23

other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown” at the

24

time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered.

25

Here, plaintiff fails to meet the requirements for granting a motion for reconsideration.

26

Plaintiff has not shown mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; he has also not

27

shown the existence of either newly discovered evidence or fraud; has not established that the

28

judgment is either void or satisfied; and has not presented any other reasons justifying relief from
2

1

judgment. Moreover, pursuant to the court’s Local Rules, plaintiff has not shown “new or

2

different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such

3

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j). The arguments

4

plaintiff presents in support of his request for a physical examination are not new, novel, or based

5

on new developments. To the contrary, his arguments have previously been presented to and

6

rejected by the court.

7
8
9

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 31) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 16, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3