Brookins v. Hernandez et al

Filing 76

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Second 75 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's March 26, 2020 Order signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/2/2020. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BARRY LEE BROOKINS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
M. HERNANDEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:17-cv-01675-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
COURT’S MARCH 26, 2020 ORDER
[ECF No. 75]

Plaintiff Barry Lee Brookins is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for clarification, filed on May 28, 2020. The

20

Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a second motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) of the

21

Court’s March 26, 2020 order denying his second motion to compel.

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs relief from orders of the district court. The

23

Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on grounds of: “(1)

24

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence. . .; (3) fraud . . .

25

by an opposing party, . . .; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied…; or (6) any

26

other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must be made

27

within a reasonable time. Id. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent

28

manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v.
1

1

Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and

2

circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. Local Rule 230(j) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or

3

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

4

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” “A motion for reconsideration should not

5

be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly

6

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling

7

law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could

8

reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marilyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma

9

GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original).

10

“A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision,

11

and recapitulation” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision. United

12

States. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must

13

set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.

14

See Kern–Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986).

15

Additionally, pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party

16

must show what “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were

17

not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j).
Here, Plaintiff fails to meet the requirements for granting a motion for reconsideration.

18
19

Plaintiff has not shown mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, or any other basis for

20

relief under Rule 60(b). Furthermore, Plaintiff has not shown “new or difference facts or

21

circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what

22

other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j). Rather, Plaintiff merely expresses

23

disagreement with the Court’s March 26, 2020 order denying his second motion to compel, and

24

contends that discovery is necessary for him to litigate this action. However, as stated in the Court’s

25

March 26, 2020 order, Plaintiff’s discovery requests and motion to compel were not timely filed, and

26

///

27

///

28
2

1

Plaintiff has failed to present any basis to reconsider the Court’s order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

2

second motion for reconsideration is denied.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:

6

June 2, 2020
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