(PC) Petillo v. Jasso ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISAIAH J. PETILLO No. 1:19-cv-00908-NONE-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. (Doc. No. 18) 14 REYNALDO JASSO, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 On January 22, 2020, this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, was dismissed, without 18 prejudice, for failure to pay the filing fee and judgment was entered. (Doc. Nos. 16, 17.) 19 On July 27, 2020, plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 18.) 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 21 district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 22 on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 23 evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 24 been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 26 Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the 27 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 28 Bishop, 229 F. 3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 1 | F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). In seeking 2 | reconsideration under Rule 60, the moving party “must demonstrate both injury and 3 | circumstances beyond his control.” Harvest, 531 F.3d at 749 (internal quotation marks and 4 | citation omitted). 5 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 6 | circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 7 | clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 8 || raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 9 | raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 10 | F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in 11 | original). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that a movant show “what new or 12 | different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown” 13 | previously, “what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were 14 | not shown” at the time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered. 15 Here, plaintiff contends that the Court’s January 22, 2020, dismissal order did not indicate 16 | whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice or provide a final notice of closure of the 17 | case. (Mot. at 4.) Plaintiff advised that the Court’s January 22, 2020, order specifically stated 18 | the action was dismissed, without prejudice, and judgment was entered this same date. (Doc. 19 | Nos. 16, 17.) To this end, plaintiff's motion does not identify any basis under Rule 60(b) upon 20 | which this court should reconsider its order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis 21 | and directing him to pay the required filing fee. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for 22 | reconsideration, filed on July 27, 2020 (Doc. No. 18) is denied. 23 | IT IS SO ORDERED. sass - Dated: _ March 24, 2021 al, A Aye 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28