Washington v. Caropreso et al

Filing 72

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 69 Motion for Reconsideration (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JESSE WASHINGTON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
16

J. CAROPRESO and M. ALVAREZ,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 11-3666 LHK (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 69)

17
18

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

19

against defendants Correctional Officers Caropreso and Alvarez, alleging that they retaliated

20

against him for filing an administrative grievance against them. On March 7, 2013, the court

21

granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. Plaintiff has now filed an objection

22

to the court’s order. Plaintiff’s objection is construed as a motion for reconsideration under

23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Defendants have filed an opposition to the motion, and

24

plaintiff has filed a reply.

25

Rule 60(b) provides a mechanism for parties to seek relief from a judgment when “it is

26

no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application,” or when there is any

27

other reason justifying relief from judgment. Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 853-54 (9th

28

Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration only upon a
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.11\Washington666recon.wpd

1

showing of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered

2

evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision;

3

(3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or

4

(6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5

5

F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds

6

justifying relief are extraordinary; mere dissatisfaction with the court’s order or belief that the

7

court is wrong in its decision are not adequate grounds for relief. Twentieth Century - Fox Film

8

Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981).

9

Plaintiff does not indicate under what provision of Rule 60(b) reconsideration is

10

warranted. Moreover, plaintiff presents no valid basis for reconsideration. He alleges no new

11

evidence that could not have been discovered with due diligence, nor does he show mistake,

12

inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, fraud by the adverse party, or voiding of the judgment.

13

Finally, he does not provide any other reason justifying relief, such as extraordinary

14

circumstances.

15

Based on the court’s original order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, as well as

16

defendants’ opposition to the instant motion for reconsideration, plaintiff’s motion for

17

reconsideration is DENIED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
8/15/13
DATED:

19

LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.11\Washington666recon.wpd

2