(PC) Ruiz v. Curry ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 1:17-cv-01454-DAD-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO AMEND 14 J. CURRY, (Doc. No. 21) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Rogelio May Ruiz was a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 at the time of this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. 21 On March 9, 2018, the assigned magistrate issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to 23 state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 16.) On May 30, 2018, the 24 undersigned adopted those findings and recommendations in full, dismissed plaintiff’s claim, and 25 directed the Clerk of the Court to close the case. (Doc. No. 19.) On October 9, 2020, over 28 26 months later, plaintiff filed a motion “to Amend Every Mistake about Assessment.” (Doc. No. 27 21.) The court construes this motion as a motion for reconsideration of the undersigned’s May 28 30, 2018 order adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 19.) 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 on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 4 evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 5 been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any 7 event “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id. 8 Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the 9 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 10 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 11 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). In seeking 12 reconsideration under Rule 60, the moving party “must demonstrate both injury and 13 circumstances beyond his control.” Harvest, 531 F.3d at 749 (internal quotation marks and 14 citation omitted). 15 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 16 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 17 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 18 raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 19 raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 20 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in 21 original). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that a movant show “what new or 22 different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown” 23 previously, “what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were 24 not shown” at the time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered. 25 Plaintiff appears to argue that he brought two claims involving the same incident and the 26 same parties: No. 1:17-cv-1407-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal) and No. 1:17-cv-1454-DAD-SAB (E.D. 27 Cal.). (Doc. No. 21.) Plaintiff also appears to now argue that because he brought the same claim 28 twice, the court should reassess its rulings. (Id.) However, the claim brought by plaintiff in this 1 | action was dismissed for failure to state a claim and nothing in plaintiff's related case changes or 2 | impacts that outcome. (Doc. No. 19.) Plaintiff fails to address any of the law or facts that the 3 | court relied upon in dismissing this action nor has he advanced any argument that compels this 4 | court to reconsider its prior order of dismissal. The court will therefore deny plaintiff's motion 5 | for reconsideration. To the extent plaintiff wishes to make similar motions for reconsideration in 6 | his other prior cases, any such request must be filed in those cases and not in this action. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 21) is denied; 9 2. This case remains closed; and 10 3. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. 11 | IT IS SO ORDERED. si am 2 Dated: _ January 13, 2021 J Al 5 ¢ □ 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28