(PC) Joshua Bland v. Gamboa et al

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Suppress, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/17/2021. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
C. GAMBOA, ET. AL.,

15

No. 1:20-cv-00794-NONE-HBK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION
TO SUPPRESS
(Doc. No. 11)

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Joshua Davis Bland is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

17
18

this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States

19

Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(B) and Eastern District of California Local Rule

20

302.

21

On June 24, 2020, the previously assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

22

recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied

23

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that he be directed the pay the full filing fee. (Doc. No. 4).

24

Plaintiff filed objections to those findings and recommendations in July 2020. (Doc. No. 5). The

25

district court adopted the findings and recommendations in full on October 19, 2020, ordered

26

plaintiff to pay the filing fee within twenty-one days of the order, and warned him that his failure

27

to timely pay the filing fee would result in dismissal of the action. (Doc. No. 6 at 2).

28

/////

On August 2, 2021, plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the court’s October 19, 20201

1
2

order. (Doc. No. 11). In sum, plaintiff argues that the Three Strikes Rule is unconstitutional and

3

impedes his right to access to the courts under the First Amendment to the United States

4

Constitution. (Id. at 1–3). Plaintiff also requests that the court “suppress” the Three Strikes Rule

5

because it was enacted without due process. (Id. at 3).

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

(3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . .

10

or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

11

60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any event “not

12

more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.

13

Moreover, when filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to

14

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

15

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” To succeed on a

16

motion for reconsideration, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

17

induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

18

Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other

19

grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary

20

remedy “to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”

21

Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see

22

also Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (addressing reconsideration under Rule

23

60(b)).
Here, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was filed approximately ten months after the

24
25

issuance of the order he now challenges. In the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff raises

26
1

27
28

It appears Plaintiff motion for reconsideration contains a typographical error regarding the date of the
order he wishes to challenge. (Doc. No. 11 at 1). Plaintiff appears to inadvertently refer to the order as
dated October 9, 2020 instead of the correct date of October 19, 2020. (Id.). The undersigned reviewed
the docket and confirmed there is no October 9, 2020 order.

2

1

arguments similar to those he advanced in his objections to earlier findings and recommendations.

2

(Compare Doc. No. 5 at 1-2 with Doc. No. 11 at 1-3). Among other things, plaintiff argued in his

3

objections the Prison Litigation Reform Act infringes on his First Amended rights. (Doc. No. 5 at

4

2). The undersigned previously reviewed those objections and nevertheless adopted the findings

5

and recommendations in full. Plaintiff’s pending motion does not provide any new or different

6

facts, circumstances, or law to justify the court’s reconsideration of its prior order. Accordingly,

7

plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration and motion to suppress (Doc. No. 11) are hereby

8

denied in their entirety.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated:

November 17, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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