(PC) Cruz v. Gonzalez ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ, No. 1:20-cv-01720-NONE-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 13 RECONSIDERATION vs. 14 (Doc. Nos. 13, 14.) L. GONZALEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo Cruz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil 21 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 On October 8, 2021, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff to pay the $402.00 23 filing fee in full for this case within thirty days, under the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 12.) On October 21, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of 25 the order. (Doc. No. 13.) On October 25, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to show the court 26 evidence of ongoing imminent danger. (Doc. No. 14.) The court construes plaintiff’s motion 27 filed on October 25, 2021 (Doc. No. 14) as another motion for reconsideration. 28 Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration are now before the court. 1 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 2 Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake, 3 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with 4 reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 5 Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or 6 misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies 7 relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to 8 prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” 9 exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and 10 citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond 11 his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking 12 reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different 13 facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such 14 prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 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,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 18 Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations 19 marks and citations omitted), and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 20 disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already 21 considered by the court in rendering its decision,” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 22 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a 23 strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare 24 Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and 25 reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 26 Here, Plaintiff objects to the court’s decision to deny him leave to proceed in forma 27 pauperis in this case under the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and ordering him 28 to pay the $402.00 filing fee in full for this case within thirty days. Plaintiff seeks 1 || reconsideration by the court of its determination that he was not under imminent danger of 2 || serious physical injury at the time he filed the original complaint for this action on December 7, 3 || 2020. 4 Plaintiff does not present the court with any newly discovered evidence or show that the 5 || court committed clear error in its ruling. Nor does he point to any intervening change in 6 || controlling law. Instead, Plaintiff merely disagrees with the court’s decision and recapitulates 7 || that which was already considered by the court in rendering its decision. Accordingly, plaintiff 8 || fails to show any reason why the court should reconsider its prior order, and the court will deny 9 || his motions for reconsideration. 10 CONCLUSION 11 Accordingly, 12 1. Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration, filed on October 21, 2021 (Doc. No. 13) and 13 October 21, 2021 (Doc. No. 14), are denied; and 14 2. No further motions for reconsideration, rehearing, clarification, or any other 15 submissions shall be filed or entertained. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ 18 Dated: _ November 1, 2021 wf al, fl 7 ae 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28