(PC) Martinez v. Pfeiffer ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICARDO MARTINEZ, No. 1:19-cv-01768-DAD-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 C. PFEIFFER, et al., (Doc. No. 25) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Ricardo Martinez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Before the court is plaintiff’s April 20, 2020 request for reconsideration1 of the 21 undersigned’s April 9, 2020 order adopting in full the assigned magistrate judge’s January 9, 22 2020 findings and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 13, 22, 25.) In its April 9, 2020 order, the court 23 adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations and dismissed this action as duplicative. (Doc. 24 No. 22.) 25 ///// 26 1 The court notes that plaintiff’s filing was styled as “[o]bjections” to the magistrate judge’s 27 findings and recommendations but requested that the court to “reopen” this action. The court will therefore construe this pending motion as a request for reconsideration under Federal Rule of 28 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 2 district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 3 for the following reasons: 4 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 5 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial 6 under Rule 59(b); 7 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 8 (4) the judgment is void; 9 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is 10 based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or 11 (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 12 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, 14 typically “not more than one year after the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Id. 15 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless 16 the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is 17 an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or 18 present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 19 litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th 20 Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). 21 In his request for reconsideration, plaintiff notes that the other cases that this action is 22 duplicative of have now all been dismissed and argues that the court should therefore re-open this 23 case to allow him to pursue the vindication of his rights. (Doc. No. 25 at 1.) In its April 9, 2020 24 order dismissing this action, the court noted that this case is duplicative of Martinez v. Standon, 25 No. 1:19-cv-00845-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2019) (dismissed for failure to state a 26 claim) and Martinez v. Lewis, No. 1:19-cv-00812-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019) 27 (same). Plaintiff, however, has provided the court with no explanation as to how re-opening this 28 case would lead to a different outcome than in Standon or Lewis, two duplicative cases that were 4:£N □□ EMO MALE SEAR MUO OI ere PY VI 1 | dismissed for failures to state a cognizable claim or why, as a matter of law, he should be 2 | permitted to pursue repetitive duplicative action in the hope of obtaining some different ruling. 3 | Moreover, plaintiff fails to present any of the enumerated grounds for reconsideration provided 4 | for by Rule 60(b). 5 Accordingly, plaintiff's request for reconsideration (Doc. No. 25) is denied. No further 6 | orders will issue in this closed case. 7 | IT IS SOORDERED. si am 8 Li. wh F Dated: _ April 28, 2020 we fo 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28