Reynolds, et al v. Sacramento County Ja, et al

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/3/12 ORDERING that plaintiffs motion to amend 23 is DENIED.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

LARRY D. REYNOLDS,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,

No. 2:90-cv-0984 WBS GGH P

vs.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al.
Defendants.

ORDER
/

Plaintiff filed an action in 1990, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s
amended complaint was dismissed and this action was closed on July 5, 1991.
On February 14, 2011, plaintiff moved to reopen the case, alleging that his suit

19

had floundered due to plaintiff’s mental health and his incarceration in federal and Arizona state

20

prisons. See Doc. No. 21. On March 9, 2011, this court denied the motion to reopen, finding

21

that plaintiff had failed to establish exceptional circumstances to warrant reopening under

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). See Doc. No. 22.

23

On May 21, 2012, plaintiff filed a one-page motion to amend his complaint,

24

alleging that this court has wrongfully held him to a higher standard, that he is presently

25

committed in a federal prison, and that he has been partially mentally and emotionally

26

handicapped since age 14. See Doc. No. 23.
1

1

To the extent plaintiff seeks to reopen this case in order to amend his complaint,

2

the court denies the motion for the reasons given in its March 9, 2011 order. Plaintiff does not

3

allege that circumstances have changed since March 9, 2011, and, in the absence of any

4

exceptional circumstances, plaintiff has not established that his case should be reopened under

5

Rule 60(b)(6).

6

To the extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court’s March 9, 2011 order,

7

his request is denied because plaintiff fails to brief the “new or different facts or circumstances

8

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

9

See Local Rule 230(j).

10

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion

11

to amend (Doc. No. 23) is denied.

12

DATED: July 3, 2012

13

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
ggh:rb

17

reyn0984.ord

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2