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
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?