Valdez v. Cate et al

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 06/26/13 ordering that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 18 is denied. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RUBEN VALDEZ,

12

No. 2:12-cv-1352-CMK-P

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

ORDER

14

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

15

Defendant.

16

/

17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

19

636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. Pending before the court is

20

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 17) of the court’s denial of a temporary restraining

21

order.

22

Under Rule 60(a), the court may grant reconsideration of final judgments and any

23

order based on clerical mistakes. Relief under this rule can be granted on the court’s own motion

24

and at any time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). However, once an appeal has been filed and

25

docketed, leave of the appellate court is required to correct clerical mistakes while the appeal is

26

pending. See id.
1

1

Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment and any

2

order based on, among other things: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)

3

newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered

4

within ten days of entry of judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an

5

opposing party. A motion for reconsideration on any of these grounds must be brought within a

6

reasonable time and no later than one year of entry of judgment or the order being challenged.

7

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

8
9

Here, plaintiff argues in his motion that the court’s decision was incorrect. He
does not claim there is any new evidence or any misconduct. Plaintiff sets forth additional detail

10

as to the factors supporting a temporary restraining order. However, none of the additional

11

information plaintiff provides the court shows the court made a mistake in denying his motion,

12

only that plaintiff disagrees with that decision. A disagreement with the court’s decision is not a

13

sufficient basis for the court to grant a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60.

14
15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 18) is denied.

16
17
18
19

DATED: June 26, 2013
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2