Reed v. Leatherman et al
Filing
43
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/12/2021 DENYING plaintiff's 42 Motion for Reconsideration and request for a Stay. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PETER J. REED,
12
No. 2:18-cv-0038 KJM CKD P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
ORDER
D. LEATHERMAN, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
On February 11, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying plaintiff’s October 5,
17
18
2020 “motion for a court order” and December 7, 2020 motion for sanctions. See ECF No. 41.
19
On March 4, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of that order.1 Local Rule 303(b),
20
states “rulings by Magistrate Judges . . . shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from
21
the Court within fourteen days . . . from the date of service of the ruling on the parties. . .” Id.
22
Pursuant to this rule and Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff’s motion for
23
reconsideration was due March 1, 2021. His motion is untimely.
Even if the court were to reach the merits of the motion for reconsideration, the
24
25
requirements for reconsideration are not met here. Plaintiff claims, “the magistrate falsely
26
27
28
1
The court deems plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration filed as of the date he gave it to prison
officials for mailing, which, according to plaintiff, was March 4, 2021. ECF No. 42 at 15; see
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
1
contends that all parties agreed on both calculations as to the deductions from plaintiff’s account
2
that would ultimately be sent to the Courts.” Mot. at 6. While a court may relieve a party from
3
an order under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “mistake, inadvertence, fraud,
4
or excusable neglect” or for “any other reason that justifies relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1),
5
(b)(6), plaintiff does not claim new or different facts or circumstances exist which did not exist
6
previously and why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.
7
See E.D. Cal. R. 230(j)(3)–(4). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent
8
highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered
9
evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.”
10
389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).
11
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
12
(1) Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 42, is denied; and
13
(2) Plaintiff’s request for a stay is denied as moot.
14
DATED: April 12, 2021.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?