Garza v. Harmon et al

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING Motion for Reconsideration 16 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/17/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAUL GARZA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

1:18-cv-00140-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 16.)

S. HARMON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

18

Plaintiff, Raul Garza (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case was dismissed

20

without prejudice on March 8, 2018, based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative

21

remedies before filing suit. (ECF No. 14.)

22

On March 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Order to Show Addition Cause of

23

Relief from Retaliation.” (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff describes events at the prison and alleges

24

that he is being retaliated against.

25

This case is closed, and any request by Plaintiff for relief from retaliation is therefore

26

moot. However, on the chance that Plaintiff is seeking to reopen this case to bring a retaliation

27

claim, the court shall address Plaintiff’s document as a motion for reconsideration of the court’s

28

decision to dismiss this case.
1

1

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

2

Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake,

3

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with

4

reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under

5

Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or

6

misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies

7

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to

8

prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .”

9

exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and

10

citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond

11

his control . . . .”

12

reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different

13

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

14

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In seeking

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

Here, Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature in his

27

motion for reconsideration to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, the

28

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 March 15, 2018, is DENIED.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

March 17, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3