(PC) Ruiz v. Rossi ( 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. 2:20-cv-1066 WBS DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 J. ROSSI, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims his rights were violated in connection with a rules violation report 19 he received in June 2019. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of 20 the court’s denial of his motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 11) and denial of his motion to 21 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 12). For the reasons set forth below, the court will 22 recommend that his motion be denied. 23 Plaintiff states that he speaks only Spanish and does not have any funds in his inmate trust 24 account. Much of plaintiff’s motion is written in Spanish.1 Plaintiff argues that the court should 25 not consider some of his prior cases as strikes because he was transferred several times interfering 26 with his ability to pursue those cases. He also claims he responded to court orders, but 27 1 The court has endeavored to translate and consider the portions of this document that were 28 written in Spanish. 1 inadvertently sent motions to the wrong court. He further states that some of his motions were 2 not accepted because they were written in Spanish. Finally, plaintiff reiterates his statement that 3 he does not have the funds to pay the filing fee and requests the court appoint an attorney or an 4 interpreter to assist him with this case. 5 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, reconsideration is appropriate in three 6 instances: (1) when there has been an intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence has 7 come to light; or (3) when necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. School 8 District No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (1993). Additionally, the local rules state that 9 a motion for reconsideration must demonstrate: “what new or different facts or circumstances are 10 claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other 11 grounds exist for the motion; and [] why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of 12 the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. R. 230(j)(3), (4). 13 Plaintiff has largely raised the same arguments in his motion for reconsideration as he did 14 in his December 3, 2020 motion objecting to the undersigned’s findings and recommendations 15 and requesting the appointment of counsel. (See ECF No. 10.) In restating his prior arguments, 16 plaintiff has not shown any new evidence, different facts, or any change in law or circumstances 17 that would warrant reconsideration of prior court orders. Accordingly, the court will recommend 18 that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration be denied. 19 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for 20 reconsideration (ECF No. 13) be denied. 21 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 22 Assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 23 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 24 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 25 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 | time may result in a waiver of the nght to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 2 | F.2d 1153 (th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: March 25, 2021 4 5 6 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 DB:12 15 | DB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Civil Rights/ruiz1066.recon 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28