Arambula v. Adams et al

Filing 42

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION re 41 Objection filed by Gonzalo Arambula. Plaintiff's allegation of "misconduct by the judge" based on Plaintiff being "unschooled in the intricacies of pleading and procedure" an d the alleged unresponsiveness to his various motions is unsubstantiated and has no affect on the correctness of the Court's ruling with respect to Plaintiff's pauper status. Plaintiff presents no other reason justifying relief. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk shall close the file. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 1/17/2012. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

GONZALO ARAMBULA,
Plaintiff,

12
13

vs.

14

DARREL ADAMS, et al.,
15

Defendants.
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 10-03549 EJD (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 41)

17
18

Plaintiff, a California inmate currently incarcerated at the Salinas Valley State

19

Prison (“SVSP”) in Soledad, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

20

1983, against prison officials for unconstitutional acts. The Court granted

21

Defendants’ motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, and dismissed the

22

action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (See Docket No. 39.)

23

On December 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “motion for an objection as well [as]

24

opposition to the Order of Granting Dismiss In Forma Pauperis Under Ground’s of

25

Misconduct by the Judge [sic].” (Docket No. 41.) The Court construes this motion

26

as a motion for reconsideration.

27
28

Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted;
they are not a substitute for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
Arambula03549_recon.wpd

1

the court. See Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338,

2

1341 (9th Cir. 1981). “‘[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration involve an

3

intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need

4

to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of

5

Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v.

6

Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)).

7

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is

discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before

10

the court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the

11
For the Northern District of California

shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly

9

United States District Court

8

judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P.

12

60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993).

13

Plaintiff fails to allege the provision of such rule under which reconsideration

14

is warranted; he alleges no new evidence that could not have been discovered with

15

due diligence, no mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, no fraud by

16

the adverse party, and no voiding of the judgment. Plaintiff’s allegation of

17

“misconduct by the judge” based on Plaintiff being “unschooled in the intricacies of

18

pleading and procedure” and the alleged unresponsiveness to his various motions is

19

unsubstantiated and has no affect on the correctness of the Court’s ruling with

20

respect to Plaintiff’s pauper status. Plaintiff presents no other reason justifying

21

relief. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

22

The Clerk shall close the file.

23
24

DATED:

January 17, 2012

EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
Arambula03549_recon.wpd

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GONZALO ARAMBULA,

Case Number: CV10-03549 EJD

Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
DARREL ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
1/18/2012
That on
, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the
attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)
hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into
an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Gonzalo Arambula T-61604
Salinas Valley State Prison
P.O. Box 1050
Soledad, CA 93960-1050
Dated:

1/18/2012
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
/s/ By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk