(PC) Frazier v. Matteson ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEMAJ LEON FRAZIER, Case No. 1:19-cv-00188-AWI-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE PRIOR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. (ECF Nos. 37, 38) 14 MATTESON, et al., ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S NEW MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 15 Defendants. PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b) 16 (ECF No. 38) 17 18 Plaintiff Semaj Leon Frazier (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner who proceeded pro se and in 19 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On December 16, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 21 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state 22 a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 29.) Following an extension of 23 time, Plaintiff filed written objections to the findings and recommendations on January 8, 2020, 24 together with a motion to amend the complaint and a proposed eighth amended complaint. (ECF 25 Nos. 32–34.) On April 30, 2020, the undersigned denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend the 26 complaint and adopted the findings and recommendations in full. (ECF No. 35.) Judgment was 27 entered accordingly the same date. (ECF No. 36.) 28 /// 1 On May 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of 2 Civil Procedure 60(b), stating that Plaintiff was presented newly discovered evidence. (ECF No. 3 37.) On June 29, 2020, before the Court issued a ruling on the pending motion for 4 reconsideration, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the prior motion from the record and to grant a 5 new motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (ECF No. 38.) 6 Plaintiff states that he filed the first motion for reconsideration due to inadvertence, 7 acknowledges that it does not qualify Plaintiff for the relief sought, and asks that the Court strike 8 that motion. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff requests that the Court grant his new motion that meets the 9 requirements for granting a motion for reconsideration. (Id.) 10 As the Court has not yet ruled on the first motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff’s motion to 11 strike is granted. Below, the Court will consider only the June 29, 2020 motion for 12 reconsideration. 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 14 district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 15 on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 16 evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 17 been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any 19 event “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id. 20 Moreover, when filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to 21 show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not 22 shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Motions to 23 reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 24 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). 25 To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court 26 to reverse its prior decision. See United States v. Westland Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 27 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001), 28 Plaintiff states that his new motion clearly meets the requirements for granting a motion wOASe LOOT RAINE MVOC OY POO VO Ee OY VV VI 1 | for reconsideration, specifically that it shows “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to 2 | exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion,” pursuant to Local Rule 3 | 230g). CECF No. 38.) The motion then goes on to relate substantive allegations relating to the 4 | claims underlying this action. However, the allegations presented in Plaintiff's motion merely 5 || repeat the same arguments raised in his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 6 || recommendations, and addressed in the April 30, 2020 order adopting. Plaintiff has not met the 7 || requirements for demonstrating relief under Rule 60(b)(2) based on newly discovered evidence. 8 | See Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., 833 F.2d 208, 211-12 (9th Cir. 9 | 1987). Having considered plaintiff's moving papers, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has 10 | presented any new or different facts, circumstances, or evidence such that reconsideration of the 11 | prior order and judgment would be appropriate. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 13 1. Plaintiff's motion to strike the May 14, 2020 motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 38), is 14 GRANTED; 15 2. Plaintiff's May 14, 2020 motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 37), is STRICKEN; 16 3. Plaintiffs June 29, 2020 motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 38), is DENIED; and 17 4. This action remains closed. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 99 | Dated: _ August 10, 2020 — 7 : 7 Cb bod — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28