(PC) Gradford v. Freddie ( 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. 1:19-cv-01252-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 DEPUTY FREDDIE, (Doc. Nos. 69, 70, 71, 72, 73) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff William J. Gradford, is a former state prisoner appeared pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 This action was closed on June 4, 2021 pursuant to plaintiff’s request for voluntary 20 dismissal (Doc. No. 46) and pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement and signed release 21 form, which the court concluded constituted a valid, clear, and unambiguous waiver of plaintiff’s 22 legal claims brought in this action. (Doc. No. 68.) On June 21, 2021, plaintiff filed several 23 difficult-to-decipher documents on the docket including a document styled as objections to the 24 assigned magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations dismissing this action. (Doc. No. 71.) 25 The court construes this filing as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil 26 Procedure 60 of the order dismissing this case. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 3 district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 4 on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 5 evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 6 been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 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 11 F.3d 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’s motion does not identify any basis under Rule 60 upon which this court should 26 reconsider its order dismissing this action. The court carefully reviewed the parties’ settlement 27 and signed release form as well as considered supplemental briefing before concluding that the 28 settlement and signed release form constituted a valid, clear, and unambiguous waiver of 1 | plaintiff’s legal claims brought in this action. (Doc. Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 59, 64.) Here, plaintiff 2 | has not set forth facts or law providing a basis upon which the court could reverse its prior 3 | decision. Therefore, plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 71) is denied. 4 PLAINTIFF’S OTHER PENDING MOTIONS 5 Because the court will dismiss this action pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement 6 | and signed release form, plaintiffs other requests (Doc. Nos. 69, 70, 72, 73) are rendered moot 7 | and will not be addressed. 8 CONCLUSION 9 Accordingly, 10 1. Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 71) is denied; 11 2. Plaintiff's other pending requests (Doc. Nos. 69, 70, 72, 73) are denied as having 12 been rendered moot and will not be addressed; 13 3. The court will not consider any further motions or issue any further orders in this 14 case; and 15 4. This case is to remain closed. 16 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a - "7 Dated: _ June 24, 2021 J aL Al 5 7 a 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28