Rodriguez v. State of California et al

Filing 64

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 7/17/2015 DENYING 60 Motion for Reconsideration. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS V. RODRIGUEZ,

12
13
14

No. 2:12-cv-02688 MCE CKD

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sought relief

18

through the present action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, named dozens of defendants

19

in his First Amended Complaint, and cited a wide range of wrongful acts, including

20

unlawful retaliation, failure to protect, and violations of his rights to due process and

21

equal protections of the law. After dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint once for failure to

22

comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8,1 Plaintiff

23

was accorded leave to amend and filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on July 8,

24

2014. ECF No. 30. Defendants again moved to dismiss, and by Findings and

25

Recommendation issued on August 4, 2014, the assigned Magistrate Judge

26

recommended dismissing the action once again since the FAC had failed to cure the

27
1

28

All further references to “Rule” or “Rules are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless
otherwise noted.

1

1

defects of Plaintiff’s previous pleading. Those Findings and Recommendations were

2

adopted in full by the undersigned on February 23, 2015, and Plaintiff’s lawsuit was

3

dismissed with prejudice since any further leave to amend was deemed futile. ECF No.

4

47. Judgment was accordingly entered in Defendant’s behalf that same day. ECF No.

5

48.

6

Plaintiff subsequently filed a “Motion for Reconsideration and to Vacate the Order

7

of Dismissal” more than a month later, on April 6, 2015. ECF No. 50. That Motion,

8

which Plaintiff premises on Rule 59(e) and 60(b), was denied, by Order filed May 20,

9

2015 (ECF No. 57), on grounds that Plaintiff had failed to show any different facts or

10

circumstances which did not exist at the time of his prior motion and would have

11

warranted the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration. In the meantime, Plaintiff had

12

filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit which remains pending.

13

Despite the pendency of his appeal, on June 12, 2015 Plaintiff filed a second “Ex

14

Parte Motion for Reconsideration” asking the court to again reconsider its previous

15

decision denying reconsideration. Plaintiff has cited no authority authorizing successive

16

reconsideration requests, and there is none. Plaintiff’s remedy at this point, if any, rests

17

with the Ninth Circuit on appeal. The Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 60) is

18

DENIED.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 17, 2015

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2