Arellano v. Ojeda et al

Filing 91

ORDER Denying 90 Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time or in the Alternative for Reconsideration. The Court denies Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of its previous order and entry of judgment in favor of Defendants. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with a blank Notice of Appeal (Civil) form. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 4/27/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(Blank civil Notice of Appeal form mailed)(rmc)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 14cv2401-MMA (JLB) RAUL ARELLANO, JR., Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR RECONSIDERATION E. OJEDA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 [Doc. No. 90] 17 18 19 Plaintiff Raul Arellano, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 20 action filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 30, 2018, the 21 Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to Plaintiff’s Eighth 22 Amendment conditions of confinement claim, and the Clerk of Court entered judgment 23 accordingly. See Doc. Nos. 87, 88. Plaintiff now moves for an extension of time in 24 which to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment order. See 25 Doc. No. 90. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that the Court deem the reasons set 26 forth in his current motion as sufficient grounds for reconsideration of its summary 27 judgment order. Id. Plaintiff also seeks assistance with filing a notice of appeal from the 28 Court’s order and judgment. Id. 1 14cv2401-MMA (JLB) 1 Because Plaintiff sets forth substantive grounds for reconsideration in his motion, 2 the Court construes the motion as a request for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule 3 of Civil Procedure 59(e). Ordinarily, reconsideration is appropriate if the Court is “(1) 4 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial 5 decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling 6 law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 7 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). While Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) permit a 8 district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers an “extraordinary 9 remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial 10 resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). To 11 carry the burden of proof, a moving party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 12 disagreement with the Court’s decision or a recapitulation of the cases and arguments 13 previously considered by the court. See United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. 14 Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 15 There has been no intervening change in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence or 16 newly discovered evidence in this case. Plaintiff’s motion does not convince the Court 17 he can demonstrate “manifest injustice” occurred in the granting of Defendants’ motion 18 and dismissal of his case. The only remaining ground that could support reconsideration 19 is clear error. Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff will not be able to establish 20 grounds for reconsideration based on clear error. Moreover, Plaintiff indicates his 21 intention to point to the same facts (which the Court previously construed in his favor), 22 and raise the same arguments presented earlier to the Court, which provides an 23 insufficient basis for a motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Navarro, 972 F. 24 Supp. 1296, 1299 (E.D. Cal. 1997) (“Motions to reconsider are not vehicles permitting 25 the unsuccessful party to rehash arguments previously presented.”). 26 // 27 // 28 // 2 14cv2401-MMA (JLB) 1 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of its 2 previous order and entry of judgment in favor of Defendants. The Court DIRECTS the 3 Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with a blank Notice of Appeal (Civil) form. Plaintiff 4 should complete the form and mail it to the following address: 5 6 7 Office of the Clerk James R. Browning Courthouse United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit P.O. Box 193939 San Francisco, CA 94119-3939 8 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: April 27, 2018 _______________________________________ HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 14cv2401-MMA (JLB)

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?