(PC) McCoy v. Massey ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON MCCOY, No. 2:18-cv-2180 WBS AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SKY MASSEY, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before this court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s denial of an 18 extension of time to serve written discovery. ECF No. 64. For the reasons stated below, the 19 motion will be denied. 20 I. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 21 In support of reconsideration, as with the original motion to extend discovery, plaintiff 22 states that he was placed in administrative segregation on September 16, 2022. This resulted in 23 him being separated him from his personal and legal property until November 16, 2022, when a 24 staff sergeant was able to obtain part of his legal work for him. Compare ECF No. 55 at 3 25 (November 2022 ad seg argument), with ECF No. 64 at 2 (instant ad seg argument). 26 The present motion elaborates that when plaintiff was sent to administrative segregation, 27 his legal documents were with a jailhouse lawyer; despite his efforts, he was unable to have them 28 returned to him until November 16, 2022, when the staff sergeant assisted him. ECF No. 64 at 3. 1 | During this time plaintiff did not have the case number. Plaintiff states that he did not sit idly by 2 || and wait for the court to rule on the original motion for an extension of time. Instead, he sent the 3 || written discovery to defendants and to this court on December 12, 2022, even though he is a 4 | layman and “had never filed a discovery” before. Id. at 3. Plaintiff argues that his delay 5 || constitutes excusable neglect, and that defendants would not be prejudiced by permitting the 6 || extension of discovery. Id. at 5-6. 7 Il. DISCUSSION 8 The motion for reconsideration must be denied. “[A] motion for reconsideration should 9 || not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with 10 || newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the 11 | controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 12 | (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)); 13 || Cunningham v. Kramer, 178 F. Supp. 3d 999, 1002 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Marlyn). 14 The additional factual detail now provided—e.g., that plaintiffs legal documents were 15 || with a jailhouse lawyer, and that plaintiff did not have the case number—do not constitute newly 16 || discovered evidence. Plaintiff has repeated and elaborated on his arguments why the court should 17 || have exercised its discretion differently, but a motion for reconsideration must not merely reargue 18 | the original matter. Plaintiff has not identified any clear error, and there has been no intervening 19 | change in the controlling law. Accordingly, there are no grounds for reconsideration. 20 For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 21 | (ECF No. 64) is DENIED. 22 || DATED: March 2, 2023 ~ 23 AMhun—Clorne ALLISON CLAIRE 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28