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)

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)