(PC) Ruiz v. Bodukam et al

Filing 31

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/26/2021 DENYING 29 Motion to Appoint Counsel, Motion for Reconsideration, and DENYING 30 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, 12 No. 2:19-cv-00146-TLN-DMC Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ORDER VIJAY BODUKMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration of the Court’s 19 September 15, 2020, final judgment and for appointment of counsel. (ECF Nos. 29, 30.) 20 The Court may grant reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 21 60. Generally, a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment is appropriately brought under 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th 23 Cir. 1985) (discussing reconsideration of summary judgment); see also Schroeder v. 24 McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 458-59 (9th Cir. 1995). The motion must be filed no later than 25 twenty-eight (28) days after entry of the judgment.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Under Rule 26 27 28 1 Pursuant to Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), for pro se prisoner litigants seeking reconsideration, the Court calculates the 28-day period from the date the motion was delivered to prison authorities for mailing to the court. Otherwise, the 28-day period is calculated based on the date the motion for reconsideration is actually filed. 1 1 59(e), three grounds may justify reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; 2 (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest 3 injustice.2 See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. 4 Cal. 1986), rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 5 U.S. 1015 (1988); see also 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 6 1999); accord School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 7 Under Rule 60(a), the Court may grant reconsideration of final judgments and any order 8 based on clerical mistakes. Relief under this rule can be granted on the Court’s own motion and 9 at any time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). However, once an appeal has been filed and docketed, 10 leave of the appellate court is required to correct clerical mistakes while the appeal is pending. 11 See id. 12 Under Rule 60(b), the Court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment and any order 13 based on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 14 evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered within ten days of 15 entry of judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an opposing party. See 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)–(3). A motion for reconsideration on any of these grounds must be 17 brought within one year of entry of judgment or the order being challenged. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 60(c)(1). Under Rule 60(b), the Court may also grant reconsideration if: (1) the judgment is 19 void; (2) the judgement has been satisfied, released, or discharged, an earlier judgment has been 20 reversed or vacated, or applying the judgment prospectively is no longer equitable; and (3) any 21 other reason that justifies relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)-(6). A motion for reconsideration 22 on any of these grounds must be brought “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Having reviewed both of Plaintiff’s motions, the Court finds no basis for reconsideration 23 24 of the September 15, 2020, final judgment. 25 /// 26 27 28 2 If reconsideration is sought based on new evidence which could not have been discovered through due diligence in time to move for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), relief may be available under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2). A motion under Rule 60(b)(2) may not be brought more than one year after entry of judgment. 2 1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED. (ECF Nos. 2 29, 30.) 3 DATED: April 26, 2021 4 5 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 6 7 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?