Message
×
loading..

(PC) Reid v. Allison ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLTON L. REID, Case No.: 1:22-cv-01437-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION 13 v. OF THE COURT’S ORDER ISSUED FEBRUARY 21, 2023 14 C. ALLISON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 BACKGROUND 18 On January 27, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 19 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining 20 order be denied. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff was advised any objections were to be filed within 14 days of 21 the service of the findings. (Id. at 11.) No objections were filed. 22 On February 21, 2023, the Court issued its Order Adopting the Findings and 23 Recommendations in Full and Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 24 Temporary Restraining Order. (Doc. 10.) 25 On February 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed “Objections to Magistrates Judge’s Findings and 26 Recommendations.” (Doc. 11.) The document is signed and dated February 17, 2023. (Id. at 4.) 27 // // 1 DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff’s Objections are untimely. Any objections to the findings and recommendations 3 were to be filed within 14 days of the date of service of those findings, or no later than February 4 10, 2023. (See Doc. 9 at 11.) The Objections were signed and dated February 17, 2023, seven 5 days after the deadline had passed. The Court notes Plaintiff did not seek an extension of time 6 within which to file his objections beyond the original deadline, nor does Plaintiff offer any 7 explanation for his delay. Nevertheless, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s Objections to be a 8 motion for reconsideration and consider them accordingly. 9 The Applicable Legal Standards 10 Pursuant to Rule 60(b), the Court may relieve a party from a final judgement or order “for 11 the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 12 discovered evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . ., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 13 (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; . . . or (6) 14 any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6). 15 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 16 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 17 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 18 Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks 19 & citations omitted). Further, “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 20 disagreement with the Court's decision, and recapitulation . . .” of that which was already 21 considered by the Court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 22 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal quotation marks & citation omitted). Additionally, pursuant 23 to this Court's Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration of an order, a party must 24 show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or 25 were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 26 230(j). 27 Analysis of Plaintiff’s Arguments 1 Order, denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. 2 Essentially, Plaintiff states his disagreement with the magistrate judge’s findings that Plaintiff is 3 not entitled to injunctive relief. Regarding the magistrate judge’s finding of a lack of personal 4 jurisdiction, Plaintiff asserts the magistrate judge stated “Petitioner failed to serve the named 5 defendants in the complaint CDCR Secretary Cathline Allison and SATF Warden Theresa 6 Cisneros. This failure is in ‘part’ on Petitioner and Petitioner will take action to do so.”1 (Doc. 11 7 at 1.) Next, Petitioner argues he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim because the 8 “institution has employed deceptive tactics to separate Plaintiff(s) from their fund and then their 9 ‘property,’” that CDCR is in breach of its contract, and that “[t]here is and has been a ‘total’ 10 deprivation of property” (Id.) These same arguments were asserted in Plaintiff’s motion for 11 preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. (See Doc. 2 at 3-7.) Plaintiff contends he 12 can show irreparable harm because “CDCR staff, particularly C/SATF staff can not account for 13 the property confiscated so the deprivation is ‘complete’ and in violation of state and 14 constitutional law.” (Doc. 11 at 4.) Again, these assertions were previously considered because 15 they mirror arguments Plaintiff made in his motion for injunctive relief. (See Doc. 2 at 3-7.) 16 Furthermore, the affidavits of Marcus Rodriguez, Miguel Guardado and Rafael Padilla, 17 attached in support of Plaintiff’s most recent filing (Doc. 11 at 3, 19-22), do not amount to newly 18 discovered evidence that would necessitate or warrant reconsideration of the Court’s February 21, 19 2023 order. The affidavits simply recount facts like those offered by Plaintiff previously. 20 Plaintiff’s objections do not establish any mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 21 neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Nor has Plaintiff presented this Court with any newly 22 discovered evidence that would necessitate or warrant reconsideration. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). 23 As noted above, the Court has already considered Plaintiff’s allegations of fraud or “deceptive 24 tactics.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). And, because reconsideration here does not concern a judgment, 25 1 The magistrate judge made no finding that Plaintiff had “failed” to serve defendants. Rather, the Findings 26 and Recommendations state that “no defendant has been served in this action, nor has any defendant filed an appearance. Thus, this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the named defendants and may 27 not act at this time.” (Doc. 9 at 5.) Service of Plaintiff’s complaint will occur only after the Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and determined it presents a cognizable claim or claims. See 19 U.S.C. 1915A. This Court is one of the busiest district courts in the nation. Screening will occur as expeditiously 1 | but rather an order, neither (b)(4) nor (b)(5) of Rule 60 apply. Lastly, the Court does not find any 2 || circumstance that would justify relief from the order for any other reason. Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 | 60(b)(6). 4 At bottom, Plaintiff's objections, construed as a motion for reconsideration, offer no facts 5 | or law of a convincing nature that would compel the Court to reverse its prior decision. Rather, 6 | Plaintiff reasserts the same unpersuasive arguments he made previously. Plaintiff's objections do 7 | not alter the Court’s evaluation of the record or the January 27, 2023, findings by the assigned 8 | magistrate judge, adopted in full by the undersigned on February 21, 2023. 9 ORDER 10 Plaintiffs objections filed February 24, 2023 (Doc. 11), construed as a motion for 11 | reconsideration of the order denying injunctive relief, are DENIED. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: _ February 28, 2023 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 1:22-cv-01437

Filed Date: 2/28/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/20/2024