Grandinetti v. CoreCivic et al

Filing 17

ORDER Denying Motion For Reconsideration and Request For Injunctive Relief re 16 . Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 11/7/2018. (cib, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
FRANCIS ANTHONY
GRANDINETTI, #A0185087,
Petitioner,
vs.
CORECIVIC,
Respondent.
______________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. No. 1:18-cv-00134 DKW-RLP
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND
REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF

Before the Court is pro se Petitioner Francis Anthony Grandinetti’s Motion
for Reconsideration on Newer Facts (Motion for Reconsideration) and request for
injunctive relief. Mot., ECF No. 16. Grandinetti seeks reconsideration of the May
3, 2018 Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying a
Certificate of Appealability under Rules 521 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Order, ECF No. 3. The time to amend the Order under Rule 59
has passed, and the Court therefore limits its review of the Motion for
Reconsideration to Rule 60. Grandinetti’s Motion for Reconsideration and request
for injunctive relief are DENIED.

1

The Court assumes Grandinetti meant to cite Rule 59, not Rule 52, and responds
accordingly.

I.

BACKGROUND

Grandinetti sought habeas relief based on a change in ownership at the
Saguaro Correctional Center (SCC), where he is incarcerated. The Court
dismissed the Petition as frivolous and denied a certificate of appealability because
the Petition was vague, conclusory, and failed to explain how a change in SCC
ownership violated Grandinetti’s constitutional rights. See Order, ECF No. 3.
After filing several more equally incomprehensible documents, Grandinetti
filed a notice of appeal on June 12, 2018. ECF No. 10. On July 19, 2018, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as “so insubstantial as to not
warrant further review.” ECF No. 14.
Grandinetti filed the present Motion for Reconsideration, with twenty-one
pages of exhibits, on November 2, 2018, pursuant to Rules 52 and 60 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 16. He also seeks injunctive relief
under Rule 65.
II.

DISCUSSION

Rule 60(b) “provides for reconsideration upon a showing of (1) mistake,
surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void
judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary
circumstances’ which would justify relief.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v.
2

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Motions for reconsideration are
not a substitute for appeal and should be infrequently made and granted. See
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir.
1981); see also Grandinetti v. Hyun, 2017 WL 239741, at *1 (D. Haw. Jan. 19,
2017).
Grandinetti’s Motion and its exhibits are as incomprehensible as were the
Petition, notice of appeal, and the supplemental documents he filed in support of
both. He fails to demonstrate mistake, surprise, excusable neglect, newly
discovered evidence, fraud, or extraordinary circumstances to persuade the Court
to reconsider its May 3, 2018 Order dismissing the Petition. Nor does Grandinetti
show that he will suffer irreparable injury or can conceivably succeed on the
merits of the Petition, justifying the denial of his request for injunctive relief. See
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). The Motion for
Reconsideration and request for injunctive relief, ECF No. 16, are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 7, 2018 at Honolulu, Hawaii.

Francis Anthony Grandinetti v. CoreCivic; Civil No. 18-00134 DKW-RLP;
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND REQUEST
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

3