Yglesias v. Patel et al

Filing 15

ORDER Denying Motion for Reconsideration 14 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/10/19. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

RAY YGLESIAS,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14

1:17-cv-01282-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 14.)

ISMAEL PATEL,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20

I.

BACKGROUND
Ray Yglesias (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21

On May 22, 2019, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that

22

this case be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff was

23

granted fourteen days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) The

24

fourteen-day time period passed, and no objections were filed. (Court record.) On June 19, 2019,

25

the undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations in full and dismissed the case with

26

prejudice. (ECF No. 12.)

27

On July 8, 2019, the court received and filed Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and

28

recommendations, more than a month after the deadline for filing objections had expired. (ECF
1

1

No. 14.) Plaintiff’s objections are timely under the mailbox rule,1 because Plaintiff’s signature

2

on the objections is dated June 4, 2019, which was within the time period for filing objections.

3

The court shall treat Plaintiff’s objections as a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order

4

dismissing the case.

5

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

6

Rule 60(b)(6) allows the court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies

7

relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice

8

and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

14

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

///

26
27
1

28

Based on the mailbox rule of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379 (1988), a pro se
prisoner’s court filing is deemed filed at the time the prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for forwarding to the
court clerk. Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009).
2

1

III.

DISCUSSION

2

The court has again reviewed the findings and recommendations entered on May 22,

3

2019, taking into consideration Plaintiff’s objections and the medical records that Plaintiff

4

submitted as exhibits to the objections. (ECF No. 14.) In the objections, Plaintiff states that he

5

informed defendant Dr. Patel of his serious medical condition, multiple sclerosis. Plaintiff’s

6

exhibits show that Plaintiff wrote down information about his medical condition on four CDCR

7

7632 Health Care Service Request Forms (Forms) dated May 27, 2011, May 31, 2011, July 30,

8

2012, and April 11, 2013. (ECF No. 14, Exhs. A & B.) However, none of the Forms mentions

9

Dr. Patel at all. Plaintiff has not made factual allegations, or submitted evidence, demonstrating

10

that Dr. Patel was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff’s health.

11

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

12

to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on July 8,

13

2019, shall be denied.

14

IV.

15
16

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing this case, filed on July 8, 2019, is DENIED.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

July 10, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3