Morris v. Turner et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 4/29/13 ORDERING that, upon reconsideration 10 , this court's order of November 9, 2012 9 is affirmed. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LEON E. MORRIS,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
K. TURNER, et al.,

ORDER

Defendants.

15
16

No. 2:12-cv-1950 WBS AC P

/
Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration in this prisoner

17

civil rights case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 10. The instant motion is

18

plaintiff’s second attack on Magistrate Judge Hollows’s September 19, 2012 Order dismissing

19

the case as duplicative. ECF No. 5.

20

In that Order, the magistrate judge construed the complaint as a motion for leave

21

to amend/proposed amended complaint in pending Case No. 12-cv-1202 MCE KJN P. After

22

detailing similarities in the named defendants and allegations of the complaint in Case No. 12-

23

cv-1202 MCE KJN P and the instant complaint (and noting that plaintiff had previously filed yet

24

another case, Case No. 2:12-cv-1774 CMK P, presenting related allegations), Magistrate Judge

25

Hollows explained:

26

The Ninth Circuit has stated that in order to assess whether a
1

1
2
3
4

“second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether the
causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies
to the action, are the same.” Adams v. California Dept. of Health
Services, 487 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007)[internal citation
omitted]; id., citing Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Company, 3. F.3d
221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[A] suit is duplicative if the claims,
parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the
two actions” (omitting internal quotation marks)).

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

It is apparent that these actions “share a common transactional
nucleus of facts.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 689. In Adams, the Ninth
Circuit determined that even where the new complaint named five
new defendants, as they, inter alia, had “a close relationship” with
the defendants named in the earlier complaint, the second
complaint was nonetheless duplicative. Id., at 691. In the instant
complaint, plaintiff has named virtually the identical defendants as
named in the first complaint with the exception that he named
several additional defendants in the first complaint. In both cases
plaintiff alleges under the portion of his complaint entitled “relief,”
that he wishes the case to be set for trial and seeks to be
represented by “a qualified attorney.” Complaint, p. 3; Case No.
12-cv-1202 (docket # 1), p. 8.

12
13
14
15
16

ECF No. 5, p. 4.
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Hollows directed the Clerk of the Court to file the
instant complaint as a motion for leave to amend in 12-cv-1202 and to close this duplicative case.
On September 25, 2012, plaintiff directed a letter to Magistrate Judge Hollows

17

which was construed as a motion for reconsideration. Upon reconsideration, this court affirmed

18

Judge Hollows’ order. ECF No. 9. Nevertheless, plaintiff filed the instant request for

19

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s ruling, claiming that his previous letter should not have

20

been construed as a motion for reconsideration but was simply a letter. ECF No. 10. The instant

21

request amounts to a duplicative motion for reconsideration because this court has previously

22

reconsidered the magistrate judge’s ruling of September 19, 2012 and affirmed it. To the extent

23

plaintiff intends his motion to be a request for the district court to reconsider its order of

24

November 9, 2012, plaintiff fares no better.

25
26

Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court,
Frito-Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981),
2

1

considerations of judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus Local Rule 230(j)(3)

2

requires that a party seeking reconsideration of a district court’s order must brief the “new or

3

different facts or circumstances [which] are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not

4

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” The rule derives

5

from the “law of the case” doctrine which provides that the decisions on legal issues made in a

6

case “should be followed unless there is substantially different evidence . . . new controlling

7

authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would result in injustice.” Handi

8

Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Waggoner v.

9

Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1064 (1986).

10

Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the

11

alteration or amendment of a judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle

12

permitting the unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present

13

“contentions which might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United

14

States, 765 F.Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D.Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268

15

(7th Cir. 1986); Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991).

16

These holdings “reflect[] district courts' concerns for preserving dwindling resources and

17

promoting judicial efficiency.” Costello, 765 F.Supp. at 1009.

18

Under Rule 60(b), a party may move for relief from judgment on the following

19

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

20

evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a

21

new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud..., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

22

(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged... or (6) any

23

other reason that justifies relief.”

24

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

25

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

26

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,
3

1

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

2

citations omitted). In seeking reconsideration, a party “must show more than a disagreement

3

with the Court’s decision,” and recapitulating arguments the court has previously considered

4

“fails to carry the moving party’s burden).” United States v. Westlands Water District, 134 F.

5

Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal.2001) (internal quotation/citation omitted).

6

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration rehashes the arguments in his earlier letter

7

seeking to reopen this case, and goes on to complain that he had been confused by his options

8

following screening in Case No. 2:12-cv-1202 MCE KJN P. Rather than amending the

9

complaint in that case, he elected to proceed against the defendants remaining after screening and

10

filed a new complaint with respect to the dismissed claims, which initiated the instant action.

11

Plaintiff disagrees with this court’s previous ruling that plaintiff’s letter seeking to reopen the

12

instant action “amounts to no more than an attempt to relitigate plaintiff’s complaint . . .” in Case

13

No. 2:12-cv-1202 MCE KJN P. ECF No. 10.

14

Following dismissal of the instant case, plaintiff was given the opportunity in

15

Case No. 2:12-cv-1202 to file a second amended complaint encompassing all of his claims from

16

both actions. ECF No. 21 in Case No. 2:12-cv-1202. In addition to finding that plaintiff has not

17

presented any basis for this court to revisit its earlier ruling, the undersigned finds that plaintiff

18

could not have been prejudiced by not having been allowed to proceed separately in a largely

19

duplicative action in this case.

20

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration (see ECF No.

21

10), this court's order of November 9, 2012 (ECF No. 9) is affirmed.

22

DATED: April 29, 2013

23
24
25
26
4