(PC) Murphy v. Clark ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN PAUL JONES MURPHY, No. 1:19-cv-00206-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 R. RODRIGUEZ, et al., (Doc. No. 47 at 15) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff John Paul Jones Murphy is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 14, 2020, the court adopted the findings and recommendations issued by the 21 assigned magistrate judge (Doc. No. 19) and allowed this case to proceed “only on plaintiff’s 22 claims against defendant Amobi for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in 23 violation of his Eighth Amendment rights and against defendants Sanchez, Rodriguez, Vang, and 24 Aguirre for negligence and for failure to protect in violation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 25 rights.” (Doc. No. 27 at 2.) On July 6, 2020, plaintiff filed an unauthorized reply to defendants’ answer to the First Amended Complaint containing what the court construes as a motion for 26 reconsideration in asking that the court “reinstate” defendants Goree, Randolph, and Bueno to this 27 action. (Doc. No. 47 at 15.) 28 1 Rule 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the district court and permits a 2 district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment for the following reasons: 3 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 4 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial 5 under Rule 59(b); 6 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 7 (4) the judgment is void; 8 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is 9 based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or 10 (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 11 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, 13 typically “not more than one year after the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Id. 14 Such a motion should not be granted “absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district 15 court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 16 intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or present 17 evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” 18 Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) 19 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 20 229 F. 3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that reconsideration should be granted “sparingly in 21 the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources”). Further, Local Rule 230(j) 22 requires, in relevant part, that a movant show “what new or different facts or circumstances are 23 claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion”, “what other 24 grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of 25 the prior motion.” 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// WwOAOU 41.490 VV YALL LT NY PVVULIICII Vo Vilevicy rPaye v viv 1 Here, plaintiff has failed to set forth any facts or law demonstrating why reconsideration 2 || should be granted.' Accordingly, plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 47 at 15) is 3 | denied. + | IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 /) oO g@ Dated: _ July 29, 2020 eee tS □□□ 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' Tf plaintiff believes that additional facts have come to light that, if alleged in his complaint, would show that he has a cognizable claim against defendants Goree, Randolph, and Bueno, he 26 | may file a motion seeking leave to amend or supplement his complaint. If plaintiff files such a motion, he must explain what allegations he is attempting to add by amended or supplemented 27 complaint and why such additional allegations are relevant to a claim he wishes to present. 28 Finally, plaintiff should also attach a complete copy of the proposed amended complaint to any motion to amend he elects to file. See Local Rule 137(c).