(PC) Smith v. Parriot et al
Filing
67
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 66 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/15/2022. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,
12
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 66.)
Plaintiff,
13
14
1:19-cv-00286-JLT-GSA-PC
vs.
PARRIOT, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
I.
BACKGROUND
21
Lawrence Christopher Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
22
forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now
23
proceeds with the First Amended Complaint filed on September 10, 2020, against defendants
24
Cantu, W. Gutierrez, and Mattingly (“Defendants”) for use of excessive force in violation of the
25
Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 22.)
26
On August 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the undersigned’s
27
order issued on November 8, 2021, which denied Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
28
independent expert(s). (ECF No. 66.)
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 reasonable
4
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3)
5
fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
6
opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
7
discharged; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is
8
to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized
9
only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th
10
Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate
11
both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
12
omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show
13
“what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were
14
not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”
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 marks
19
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 F.Supp.2d
22
1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly
23
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist.
24
v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in
25
part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
26
Here, Plaintiff objects to the court’s decision (ECF No. 51) to deny him a court-appointed
27
private investigator/paralegal, or expert witness to assist him with this case. Plaintiff does not
28
present the Court with any newly-discovered evidence, or show that the Court committed clear
2
1
error in its ruling. Nor does he point to any intervening change in controlling law or set forth
2
facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.
3
Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to show any reason the Court should reconsider its prior order, thus
4
the Court will deny his motion for reconsideration. 1
5
IV.
6
7
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration, filed on August 12, 2022, is DENIED.
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
August 15, 2022
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is 219 pages long, including exhibits, and raises
issues unrelated to his motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 66.) The Court will not consider Plaintiff’s
unrelated issues in this order.
1
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?