(PC) Lewis v. Gipson ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARONTE TYRONE LEWIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00574-NONE-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION 13 v. FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING 14 CONNIE GIPSON, ET. AL., (Doc. Nos. 113, 114, 119) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Daronte Tyrone Lewis, a state prisoner, initiated this action proceeding pro se by 18 filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). The district court recently 19 adopted the undersigned’s Findings and Recommendations to grant Defendants’ motion to 20 dismiss only to the extent Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against Defendants in their official 21 capacities, but to deny the motion in all other respects. (Doc. No. 120). 22 Currently pending before the Court are the following motions filed by Plaintiff: (1) 23 motion for reconsideration seeking reconsideration of the Court’s order denying him appointment 24 of counsel, filed on August 4, 2021 (Doc. No. 113); (2) motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 25 order denying his request “for intervention by the United States,” filed on August 9, 2021 (Doc. 26 No. 114); and, a 151-page motion entitled “reconsideration,” incorporating a motion for an 27 evidentiary hearing, but is otherwise unclear as to what order Plaintiff requests the Court to 28 reconsider, filed on September 20, 2021. (Doc. No. 119). For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s 1 motions are denied. 2 A. Standard of Review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final judgment, 4 orders, or proceedings of the district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party 5 from a final judgment, order, or proceedings on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, 6 or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the 7 judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief 8 from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be 9 made within a reasonable time, in any event “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or 10 proceeding was entered or taken.” Id. 11 When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show the 12 “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown 13 upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Motions to reconsider are 14 committed to the discretion of the trial court. See Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 15 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, 16 a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its 17 prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 18 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 19 B. Plaintiff’s Reconsideration Motions 20 In the first motion, Plaintiff states that the Court erroneously denied him appointment of 21 counsel and decided that “due to lack of funds/compensation, it …. does not have to . . . refer and 22 or appoint counsel for the limited scope and purpose of discovery Procedure and Process . . .” 23 (Doc. No. 113 at 2). Plaintiff re-asserts that this hand injury makes him handicap and that he 24 requires accommodation, or appointment of counsel, to prosecute his case. (Id.). Plaintiff 25 further alleges he trades his meals to inmates so they assist him. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff incorporates 26 within his motion medical notes dated July 9, 2021, reflecting Plaintiff fell and injured his right 27 arm; “possible carpal tunnel syndrome”; “tone was normal”; “wrist and hand strength” was “4/5 28 verses 5/5 on the left”; “no atrophy was noted.” (Id. at 9). Following an EMG test, the report 1 indicated “no evidence” of carpal tunnel on Plaintiff’s wrist. (Id. at 10). 2 In Plaintiff’s second motion, consisting of 88-pages, he again requests intervention of the 3 United States, or the State, in the CDCR. (Doc. No. 114). Plaintiff motion re-alleges the facts at 4 issue in his Complaint. (Id. at 4-5). And, finally, Plaintiff’s third motion, as noted above, 5 consisting of over 100 pages, is unclear what order he seeks the Court to reconsider. (Doc. No. 6 C. Analysis 7 Here, Plaintiff does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 60(b) in any of his three reconsideration 8 motions, because he does not present any new facts, circumstances, or law to justify 9 reconsideration of the Court’s prior orders. Regarding the order denying Plaintiff’s motion to 10 appoint of counsel, the Court never suggested a lack of funds to appoint counsel, but instead 11 found no exceptional circumstances present. (See Doc. Nos. 106, 112). The Court noted Plaintiff 12 appeared to be able to litigate his case. (Doc. No. 106 at 2-3). Plaintiff’s reconsideration motion 13 raises the same facts before, e.g., that his wrist condition precludes him from prosecuting his 14 action, but this issue was previously raised and rejected. (Doc. No. 106 at 2-3). Incorporated 15 within the motion for reconsideration is medical documentation further supporting the Court’s 16 prior denial of counsel. (Doc. No. 113 at 9-10). Indeed, despite his complaints that he cannot 17 write, Plaintiff continues to file prolific and lengthy motions. 18 Plaintiff’s other two reconsideration motions fare no better. Both are in excess of the page 19 limitations for e-filing. The Court has previously warned Plaintiff about his prolific filing. (See 20 Doc. No. 107). The Rule 60(b) standards “reflect[] district courts’ concern for preserving 21 dwindling resources and promoting judicial efficiency.” Arnold v. County of El Dorado, 2012 22 WL 2117678 * 1 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (citations omitted). At most, Plaintiff merely rehashes the 23 arguments he raised in previous motions that were rejected. 24 Further, to the extent Plaintiff requests an evidentiary hearing, his request is denied. 25 There are no facts that require development at a hearing given the procedural posture of this case. 26 Considering the district court recently adopted the undersigned’s findings and recommendations 27 denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss, by separate order the court will stay the case and permit 28 the parties an opportunity to participate in early alternative dispute resolution. 1 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 2 1. Plaintiffs motions for reconsideration (Doc. Nos 113, 114, 119) are DENIED. 3 2. Plaintiffs motion for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 119) is DENIED. 4 3. By separate order the Court will issue an order staying the case for purposes of 5 || permitting the parties to consider whether to engage in alternative dispute resolution. 6 Dated: _ September 22, 2021 ooo. Th. Bareh Hack 8 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28