(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)

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