(PC) Gradford v. Velasco ( 2022 )

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. 1:20-cv-00543-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN THIS CASE 14 F. VELASCO, et al., (Doc. No. 74) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff William J. Gradford is a former pretrial detainee who filed this civil rights action 18 on April 16, 2020, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 1, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice as voluntarily dismissed and 22 provided the parties fourteen (14) days to file any objections. (Doc. No. 70.) After no timely 23 objections were filed, this court adopted the findings and recommendations on August 2, 2021, 24 and this case was closed. (Doc. No. 71.) 25 On September 20, 2021, plaintiff filed a document titled “objections due process clause,” 26 which the court construed as objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. 27 (Doc. No. 72.) These objections were untimely, and they also failed to state any coherent 28 objections or provide any reason for the court to reopen the case. Accordingly, the court declined 1 to reopen this case. (Doc. No. 73.) Then, on October 25, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen 2 the case. (Doc. No. 74.) Therein, plaintiff once again fails to state any coherent reasoning for 3 why the court should reopen this case. 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 5 district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 6 on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 7 evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 8 been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 10 Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the 11 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 12 Bishop, 229 F. 3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 13 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). In seeking 14 reconsideration under Rule 60, the moving party “must demonstrate both injury and 15 circumstances beyond his control.” Harvest, 531 F.3d at 749 (internal quotation marks and 16 citation omitted). 17 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 18 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 19 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 20 raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 21 raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 22 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in 23 original). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that a movant show “what new or 24 different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown” 25 previously, “what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were 26 not shown” at the time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered. 27 Plaintiff’s motion does not identify any basis under Rule 60 upon which this court should 28 reconsider its order dismissing this action. Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law providing a 1 | basis upon which the court should reverse its prior decision. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for 2 | reconsideration (Doc. No. 74) will be denied. 3 Accordingly, 4 1. Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case (Doc. No. 74) is denied; 5 2. The court will not consider any further filings and will not issue any further orders 6 in this closed case; and 7 3. This case remains closed. 8 | IT IS SOORDERED. a " 9 ji je Ff; Dated: _ January 26, 2022 Sea 1" S098 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28