Pierce v. Sacramento News & Review et al
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/30/17, DENYING Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Reconsideration. (Kastilahn, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SACRAMENTO NEWS & REVIEW, et
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking
relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. On April 11, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed
findings and recommendations. ECF No. 8. Therein, plaintiff was notified written objections to
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days of service. Id. No
objections to the findings and recommendations were filed.
On September 26, 2017, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendations in part, denying plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(ECF No. 3), and granting plaintiff thirty days to pay the filing fee for this action. ECF No. 9.
On October 16, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 10.
Defendant’s motion argues “No facts or legal findings exist which reflect that as of 2012 the
applicant as Seavon Pierce has ‘filed or commenced’ a [sic] action against any person or party.
The evidence of the record reflects that matters have been ‘screened.’ No facts or finding
conclude that a finding exist of any merits of a claim against any party as of 2012 as decided
under 42 USC 1983 against a specific person or party.” ECF No. 10, p. 1.
Relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 “is to be used sparingly as an
equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only [in] extraordinary
circumstances . . . .” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances
beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Under Local Rule
230(j), the moving party must show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to
exist which did not exist or were not shown . . . or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and
“why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.”
Here, plaintiff does not show new or different facts or circumstances, or other
grounds for the present motion. Further, plaintiff does not explain why he did not raise his
objections in response to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. As the
Magistrate Judge explained in the findings and recommendations, several courts have properly
determined plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1985(g).
ECF No. 8, p. 2. This court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings regarding plaintiff’s status
under 28 U.S.C. § 1985(g). ECF No. 9, pp. 1-2. Plaintiff presents no evidence here that calls
those conclusions into question.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 10) is DENIED.
DATED: October 30, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?