(PC) Gradford v. Guiltron ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, No. 1:18-cv-01364-DAD-GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 DEPUTY GUILTRON, (Doc. No. 42) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff William J. Gradford is a former state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred 19 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 12, 2021, the undersigned adopted the assigned magistrate judge’s findings 21 and recommendations (Doc. No. 38) and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss this action (Doc. 22 No. 35) on the grounds that plaintiff had already settled this action and signed a release of all 23 claims, which constituted a valid, clear, and unambiguous waiver of plaintiff’s legal claims 24 against defendant. (Doc. No. 40.) On January 21, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the 25 dismissal of this action and to schedule a settlement conference therein, which the court construes 26 as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 of the order dismissing 27 this case. (Doc. No. 42.) On February 25, 2021, defendant Guiltron filed an opposition, and on 28 March 1, 2021, plaintiff filed a reply. (Doc. Nos. 43, 44.) 1 DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the court’s January 12, 2021 order and asks the court 3 to vacate the dismissal order and then schedule a settlement conference. (Doc. No. 42 at 6.) 4 Plaintiff argues that defense counsel did not present to this court all of the documents that 5 plaintiff represents he signed when he signed a release of all claims against Stanislaus County and 6 defendant Guiltron. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff also asserts that defense counsel violated federal law and 7 this court’s Local Rules. (Id.) In addition, plaintiff states the court should vacate the dismissal 8 order and re-set the scheduling conference as it had in another of plaintiff’s cases presenting 9 similar issues, Gradford v. Freddie, No. 1:19-cv-01252-DAD-EPG,1 and which plaintiff contends 10 was part of the same settlement. 11 Defendant responds that plaintiff’s motion is inadequate as a matter of law under Rule 59 12 or 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because plaintiff has not set forth any law or facts 13 warranting the relief he seeks. (Doc. No. 43 at 1–2.) Defendant argues that plaintiff’s motion 14 merely rehashes previously made arguments and offers no evidence in support of plaintiff’s 15 arguments. (Id. at 2.) 16 In reply, plaintiff again argues that defense counsel deceived plaintiff by failing to present 17 to the court all of the documents that plaintiff signed in connection with the parties’ settlement. 18 (Doc. No. 44.) 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 20 district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 21 on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 22 evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 23 been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 25 ///// 26 1 Here the undersigned notes that the posture of the request was quite different. In the Gradford 27 v. Freddie matter, plaintiff’s request to withdraw the pending motion dismiss was granted because it was plaintiff’s own motion, and plaintiff had indicated it had been filed by him in error. (See 28 Gradford v. Freddie, Doc. No. 33.) 1 Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the 2 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 3 Bishop, 229 F. 3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 4 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). In seeking 5 reconsideration under Rule 60, the moving party “must demonstrate both injury and 6 circumstances beyond his control.” Harvest, 531 F.3d at 749 (internal quotation marks and 7 citation omitted). 8 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 9 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 10 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 11 raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 12 raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 13 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in 14 original). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that a movant show “what new or 15 different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown” 16 previously, “what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were 17 not shown” at the time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered. 18 Here, plaintiff’s motion does not identify any basis under Rule 60 upon which this court 19 should reconsider its order dismissing this action. Nor does plaintiff argue that any of the 20 allegedly missing pages of the documents submitted to this court suggest this action was not 21 settled as part of that agreement. Plaintiff has simply not set forth facts or law providing a basis 22 upon which the court could reverse its prior decision. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for 23 reconsideration and requesting that the court schedule a settlement conference in this case will be 24 denied. 25 CONCLUSION 26 Accordingly, 27 1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and for the court to schedule a settlement 28 conference, filed on January 21, 2021 is denied; 1 2. The court shall not consider any further motions in this case; and 2 3. This case is to remain closed. 3 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a 7. | Dated: _March 12, 2021 VL AL oye 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28