Cramer v. City of Auburn et al

Filing 40

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 03/07/16 ORDERING that the 32 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED; the 02/04/16 30 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations shall not be disturbed. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID CRAMER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-00462-KJM-AC

v.

ORDER

CITY OF AUBURN,

15

Defendant.

16
17
Plaintiff David Cramer, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for reconsideration under

18
19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) after the court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and

20

recommendations in full and entered judgment.1 ECF No. 32. Defendant City of Auburn

21

opposed. ECF No. 37. Plaintiff then filed an appeal of the court’s judgment, which the Ninth

22

Circuit is holding in abeyance pending the court’s resolution of this motion. ECF Nos. 33, 38.

23

As explained below, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

24

/////

25

/////

26
1

27
28

The motion for reconsideration asks the court to “vacate” its order adopting the findings
and recommendations of the magistrate judge. The court thus construes plaintiff’s filing as
asking for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
1

1

The amended complaint in this case, founded on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges two

2

City of Auburn police officers violated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights when they arrested

3

and jailed plaintiff. ECF No. 8-1. Defendant moved to dismiss, contending plaintiff’s claim is

4

barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because the amended complaint alleged the

5

arrest leading to plaintiff’s conviction lacked probable cause, ECF No. 12, and Heck bars claims

6

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where judgment entered in favor of plaintiff “would necessarily imply the

7

invalidity of [plaintiff’s] conviction or sentence.” 512 U.S. 477, 487.2 At hearing on the motion

8

to dismiss, plaintiff conceded he was challenging the arrest that led to his conviction. ECF No.

9

23 at 4. The magistrate judge thus found plaintiff’s action “barred by Heck until plaintiff’s

10

conviction is overturned.” Id.

11

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs relief from orders and judgments of

12

the district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or

13

judgment on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . . . (3) fraud

14

. . . by an opposing party, . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

15

The motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time. Id. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to

16

be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only

17

where [there are] extraordinary circumstances.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir.

18

2008). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control

19

. . . .” Id. Local Rule 230(j) also requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or

20

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion,

21

or what other grounds exist for the motion.” As the Ninth Circuit has observed, “a motion for

22

reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district

23

court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an

24

intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH

25

& Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in omitted). Such a motion “may not be used

26
2

27
28

Plaintiff has not contested the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations with
respect to the dismissal of other claims for lack of jurisdiction or her denial of a motion to
continue.
2

1

to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been

2

raised earlier in the litigation.” Id.

3

Here, plaintiff does not present the court with any newly discovered evidence,

4

argue that the court has committed clear error or made an unjust decision, or point out there was a

5

change in controlling law. Instead, plaintiff merely reasserts his claims as presented in the

6

amended complaint, challenging the arrest that led to his conviction, and stating in a conclusory

7

fashion that the action is not barred by Heck. ECF No. 32 at 2–4. As a brother court has stated,

8

“[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the [c]ourt’s

9

decision, and recapitulation of that which was already considered by the [c]ourt in rendering its

10

decision.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001)

11

(citations and quotations omitted).

12
13
14
15

The court DENIES the motion for reconsideration. The February 4, 2016 order
adopting the findings and recommendations shall not be disturbed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 7, 2016.

16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3