Pierce v. Harris

Filing 14

ORDER denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/22/17. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SEAVON PIERCE,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-1999 JAM DB P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

KAMALA HARRIS,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se who submitted a petition invoking

18

numerous federal statutes, including 28 U.S.C. § 1361, which vests federal district courts with

19

original jurisdiction to hear “an action in the nature of mandamus” against an officer or employee

20

of the United States. On March 24, 2016, this action was dismissed on the grounds that

21

petitioner’s allegations against then Attorney General Kamala Harris, and apparently also against

22

then President Barack Obama, were “too far-fetched to be believed” and were therefore frivolous

23

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (ECF Nos. 8, 10.) On April 13, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for

24

reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (ECF No. 12.)

25

A moving party under Rule 60(b) is entitled to relief from judgment for the following

26

reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence;

27

(3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void;

28

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; or (6) any other reason justifying
1

1

relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

2

Relief under Rule 60 “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest

3

injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances.” exist. Harvest v. Castro,

4

531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted) (addressing

5

reconsideration under Rules 60(b)(1)-(5)). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and

6

circumstances beyond his control.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further,

7

Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that plaintiff show “what new or different facts or

8

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown” previously, “what

9

other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown” at the

10
11

time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered.
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

12

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

13

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to

14

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

15

raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571

16

F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted).

17

Here, petitioner contends the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A are inapplicable

18

to his petition, which he appears to categorize as either a “petition to compel” or a habeas petition

19

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Ptr.’s Mot. (ECF No. 12) at 1-2.) Petitioner also mentions issues of

20

excessive force and mail tampering. (Id. at 4.) Petitioner’s arguments have no merit. First, this

21

court is required to screen all actions brought be prisoners who seek any form of relief, including

22

habeas relief, from a from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

23

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Further, to the extent petitioner is attempting to raise new claims, he may

24

not do so in a Rule 60(b) motion. New claims must be made in a new action. See Villa v.

25

Gipson, No. 1:13-cv-0814-AWI-SKO HC, 2015 WL 5331618, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2015).

26

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 303, this

27

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

28

court finds the order adopting the findings and recommendation (ECF No. 10), which issued on
2

1
2
3
4
5

March 24, 2016, to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration filed April 13, 2016 (ECF No. 12), is
hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 22, 2017

6

/s/ John A. Mendez_________________________

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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