Grant v. Cate, et al.

Filing 84

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/21/17 ORDERING that plaintiffs motion for reconsideration 83 , construed as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), is DENIED. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TRAVARE GRANT,

12
13
14
15

No. 2: 14-cv-01867 MCE KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 7, 2016, the magistrate judge recommended that defendants’

19

summary judgment motion be granted. (ECF No. 77.) On January 25, 2017, the undersigned

20

adopted the findings and recommendations and judgment was entered. (ECF Nos. 80, 81.)

21

On February 17, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the January 25, 2017

22

order adopting the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 83.) The undersigned construes the

23

motion for reconsideration as a request for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

24

Procedure 60(b). For the reason stated herein, plaintiff’s motion is denied.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

evidence ...; (3) fraud ... of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been
1

1

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

2

Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any event

3

“not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.

4

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

5

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

6

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Motions to

7

reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825

8

F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To

9

succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to

10

reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp.

11

656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.

12

1987).

13

In the pending motion, plaintiff challenges the finding that he failed to exhaust his

14

administrative remedies as to defendants Jason, Brown and Huber. Plaintiff appears to argue that

15

the magistrate judge erred in finding that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to

16

these defendants because plaintiff failed to name them in his administrative grievances.

17

In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that on January 25, 2012, defendants Jason,

18

Brown and Huber denied his request to be transferred back to California following a classification

19

hearing. (ECF No. 17 at 4.) The magistrate judge did not find that plaintiff failed to exhaust his

20

administrative remedies as to defendants Jason, Brown and Huber because he failed to name them

21

in his administrative grievances. Instead, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff failed to

22

exhaust his administrative remedies as to these defendants because plaintiff’s administrative

23

grievances did not challenge defendants’ decision to deny his request for a transfer back to

24

California or mention the at-issue classification hearing. (ECF No. 77 at 10.) The magistrate

25

judge stated that, “[t]his is most likely because the at-issue classification committee hearing

26

occurred after plaintiff filed his first level grievance.” (Id.) “For these reasons, plaintiff’s

27

grievances did not put defendants on notice that he challenged their decision to deny his request

28

for a transfer.” (Id.)
2

1
2
3

For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has not shown good
cause to grant his motion for relief from judgment.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF

4

No. 83), construed as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

5

Procedure 60(b), is denied.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 21, 2017

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3