(PC) Ruiz v. Hubbard

Filing 26

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 4/26/2021 DENYING Plaintiff's 23 Motion for Reconsideration.(Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:19-cv-2350 JAM AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER A. HUBBARD, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion reconsideration of his request to proceed in forma pauperis and the order dismissing this case. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of the order denying his application to proceed in 20 forma pauperis. This is plaintiff’s third such motion. See ECF Nos. 13, 16. As with plaintiff’s 21 previous motion, the majority of the motion is in Spanish and he states that his new evidence is 22 presented in Spanish because he cannot write in English. ECF No. 23 at 1; ECF No. 24. Plaintiff 23 has previously been advised that in order to be considered his filings must be in English. ECF 24 No. 20. Furthermore, though plaintiff states that he is unable to write in English, his filings are 25 all at least partially written in English. Because the portions of the motion that are in English do 26 not present any new facts, the motion will be denied. See L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4) (motion for 27 reconsideration must identify new or different facts). Any further motions for reconsideration 28 that are not in English will be disregarded. 1 1 With respect to plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the order dismissing this case, a motion for 2 reconsideration or relief from a judgment is appropriately brought under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 3 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th 4 Cir. 1991) (citing Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989)). The motion “is treated as 5 a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) if it is filed 6 [within the time provided by that Rule]. Otherwise, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief 7 from a judgment or order.” Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 8 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Since petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was 9 filed within twenty-eight days of the entry of judgment, the motion is considered under Rule 10 59(e). 11 “Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly 12 unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 13 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. 14 Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). As with the request to 15 reconsider the denial of plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, the request to reconsider 16 denial of this case is largely presented in Spanish, and the portion written in English does not 17 present any new evidence or other grounds for reconsideration. 18 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 23, is DENIED. 20 21 22 23 DATED: April 26, 2021 /s/ John A. Mendez THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 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?