Pierce v. Harris

Filing 14

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

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?