(PC) Gonzalez v. Razo ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANUEL ANTONIO GONZALEZ, No. 1:15-cv-01098-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. (Doc. No. 171) 14 J. RAZO, et al., Defendants. 15 16 Manuel Antonio Gonzalez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se1 and in forma pauperis in 17 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 This case was closed on January 30, 2019 (Doc. No. 145) following a stipulation for 19 voluntary dismissal with prejudice that was signed by counsel for both parties and filed with the 20 court on January 29, 2019 (Doc. No. 144). 21 On May 12, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion entitled motion to vacate judgment, dismissal, 22 and to allow plaintiff to withdraw his plea, which the court construes as a motion for 23 reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 of the order dismissing this case. (Doc. 24 No. 171.) This motion is similar to two others plaintiff has brought since this case was closed 25 almost two and one half years ago. 26 1 While plaintiff’s most recent motions have been filed pro se, the court again notes that 27 plaintiff’s counsel has not been substituted out as counsel of record, nor has plaintiff filed a notice of appearance indicating that he wishes to represent himself in this action in place of his counsel 28 of record. (Doc. No. 162 at 2 n.1.) 1 The court has now twice adopted findings and recommendations recommending prior iterations 2 of this motion be denied.2 (Doc. Nos. 161, 162, 166, 170.) 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 4 district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 5 on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 6 evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 7 been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 9 Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the 10 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 11 Bishop, 229 F. 3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 12 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). In seeking 13 reconsideration under Rule 60, the moving party “must demonstrate both injury and 14 circumstances beyond his control.” Harvest, 531 F.3d at 749 (internal quotation marks and 15 citation omitted). 16 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 17 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 18 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 19 raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 20 raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 21 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in 22 original). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that a movant show “what new or 23 different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown” 24 previously, “what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were 25 not shown” at the time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered. 26 ///// 27 2 Additional background information pertaining to those motions may be found in the court’s 28 May 3, 2021 order. (Doc. No. 170.) 1 Here, plaintiff's motion does not identify any basis under Rule 60 upon which this court 2 | should reconsider its order dismissing this action. Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law providing 3 | a basis upon which the court could reverse its prior decision. Therefore, plaintiffs motion for 4 | reconsideration is denied. 5 CONCLUSION 6 Accordingly, 7 1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 171) is denied; 8 2. The court shall not consider any further motions in this case which was closed 9 long ago and any further filings will be disregarded; and 10 3. This case is to remain closed. 11 | IT IS SO ORDERED. si am 2 Dated: _ June 4, 2021 i aL, Al ¢ a 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28