Tia v. Antonio et al

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING 11 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on August 27, 2012. (bbb, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
PETER R. TIA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LYLE ANTONIO, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )

NO. 1:12-cv-00295 LEK/KSC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the court is Petitioner’s “Notice of Appearance
of 12-19-2011 Document in Supp[or]t of Reconsideration from 7-2612 Case Dismissal.”

Mot., ECF #11.

Plaintiff seeks

reconsideration of the Order dismissing his Complaint as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim, and granting him
leave to amend.

See Ord., ECF #8.

Plaintiff claims that the

denial of his parole is relevant to show a conspiracy against him
and that Defendants are not subject to Eleventh Amendment
immunity in their individual capacities.

Plaintiff’s Motion is

DENIED.
Rule 60(b) permits reconsideration based on: (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)
newly-discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have
been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59;
(3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an adverse party;
(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is

based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer
equitable that the judgment should have prospective application;
or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of
the judgment.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(b)(6).

Reconsideration is generally appropriate in three
instances: (1) when there has been an intervening change of
controlling law; (2) new evidence has come to light; or (3) when
necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.
1993).

A successful motion for reconsideration must demonstrate

some reason that the court should reconsider its prior decision
and set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to
induce the court to reverse its prior decision.

White v.

Sabatino, 424 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1274 (D. Haw. 2006).

Local Rule

LR60.1 for the District of Hawaii implements these standards for
reconsideration of interlocutory orders.
First, the court did not hold that the denial of parole
cannot be used to show evidence of a conspiracy.

Rather, the

court stated that Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations of
conspiracy did not meet the heightened pleading standard required
for conspiracy claims.

See Ord., ECF #8 at 16.

The court also

held that Plaintiff has no right to notify the police when his
parole is denied, and that his claims concerning the denial of
parole do not belong with his claims concerning the conditions of

2

confinement in prison.

Id. at 15.

Second, the court did not hold that Defendants are
absolutely immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.
Rather, the court held that claims for damages against official
capacity Defendants are barred; Plaintiff may still bring damages
claims against individual Defendants.

Id.

Plaintiff provides no reason to reconsider the Order
finding that his Complaint fails to state a claim as written.
That is not to say that Plaintiff cannot proceed with his claim
against Nurse Lydia for the alleged denial of medical care.

He

may do so after he dismisses his other claims that do not state a
claim, or are duplicative, or are completely unrelated to this
claim.

The court suggests that Plaintiff reread the July 26,

2012 Order dismissing his Complaint so that he can better
understand his options.
Petitioner’s Motion does not set forth facts or law of
a strongly convincing nature persuading this court to reverse its
Order dismissing his Complaint with leave given to amend.
Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, August 27, 2012.

/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

Tia v. Antonio, et al., 1:12-cv-00295 LEK-KSC; ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION; psas\ recon\DMP\2012\Tia 12-295 lek (re. dsm C ftsc & friv)

4