Besoyan v. Yee et al

Filing 22

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/12/19 DENYING 21 Motion for Reconsideration. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL J. BESOYAN,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-46-KJM-EFB PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is before the court. Mot., ECF No. 21.

18

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this court's order adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and

19

recommendations. Adoption Order, ECF No. 19. A motion for reconsideration or relief from a

20

judgment is appropriately brought under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry,

21

950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989)).

22

Although plaintiff does not identify the basis of his motion, the court construes this as a motion

23

for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b) because it was not filed within the 28-day

24

window required by Rule 59. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248

25

F.3d 892, 898–99 (9th Cir. 2001). Relief under Rule 60(b) should not be granted absent

26

“extraordinary circumstances” showing a significant change in facts or law. Delay v. Gordon,

27

475 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984

28

F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993)). The moving party must show the court either committed a clear
1

1

error, applied the wrong law, or rested its decision on clearly erroneous findings of fact. Delay v.

2

Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting SEC v. Coldicutt, 258 F.3d 939, 941 (9th

3

Cir. 2001). Similarly, Local Rule 230(j)(3)–(4) requires that a movant seeking reconsideration

4

identify “what new or different facts or circumstances” exist, or any other grounds, to justify

5

reconsideration of a court’s prior order. E.D. Cal. R. 230(j)(3)–(4).

6

Here, plaintiff identifies no new facts, extraordinary circumstances or other

7

grounds to justify relief from the court’s prior order. Just as with his first amended complaint, see

8

ECF No. 16, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration consists of 55 pages of wide ranging and often

9

indiscernible factual and legal contentions. See generally Mot. Such nebulous assertions provide

10

no grounds upon which the court can reasonably reconsider its adoption of the magistrate judge’s

11

findings and recommendations. For this reason, the motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 21, is

12

DENIED.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 12, 2019.

15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2