(PC) Smith v. Parriot ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH, 1:19-cv-00286-NONE-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 vs. (ECF No. 36.) 14 BRIAN L. PARRIOT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Lawrence Christopher Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the 20 Complaint commencing this action on February 14, 2019, in the Sacramento Division of the 21 United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On March 4, 22 2019, the case was transferred to this court. (ECF No. 3.) 23 On September 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 22.) On 24 January 19, 2021, the court found the First Amended Complaint appropriate for service and 25 directed e-service on defendants Andres Cantu, Wilfredo Gutierrez, and J. Mattingly 26 (“Defendants”). (ECF No. 28.) On June 14, 2021, Defendants filed an answer to the First 27 Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 33.) On June 15, 2021, discovery was opened. (ECF No. 35.) 28 This case is now in the discovery phase. 1 On July 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint. (ECF No. 36.) On 2 July 30, 2021, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 37.) On August 12, 2021, 3 Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a reply to Defendants’ opposition. (ECF No. 4 39.) On August 16, 2021, the court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion to file a Second 5 Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 40.) Also on August 16, 2021, the court granted Plaintiff’s 6 motion for extension of time. (ECF No. 41.) 7 On August 31, 2021, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendants’ opposition to the motion to 8 amend. (ECF No. 44.) Given that on August 16, 2021, the court issued an order denying 9 Plaintiff’s motion to amend the court shall treat Plaintiff’s reply as a motion for reconsideration 10 of the court’s order. 11 II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 12 Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake, 13 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable 14 diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) 15 fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an 16 opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. 17 Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest 18 injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. 19 Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The 20 moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. 21 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local 22 Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed 23 to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds 24 exist for the motion.” 25 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 26 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 27 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 28 Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks 1 and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 2 disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already 3 considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 4 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly 5 convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. 6 v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in 7 part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 8 III. DISCUSSION 9 Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature in his motion for 10 reconsideration to induce the Court to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for 11 reconsideration shall be denied. 12 IV. CONCLUSION 13 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for 14 reconsideration, filed on August 31, 2021, is DENIED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: September 1, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28