(PC) Byrd v. Unknown ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YAKINI DEANDRE BYRD, Case No. 1:19-cv-01343-ADA-HBK 12 Plaintiff, GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. (Doc. No. 72) 14 F. SERRANO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 72). 18 Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se on his amended civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 19 1983, requests the Court to reconsider its July 20, 2022 order finding Plaintiff’s construed motion 20 for summary judgment procedurally deficient. (Doc. Nos. 72, 70). In particular, the Court 21 pointed out, among other things, that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment did not include an 22 undisputed statement of facts, as required by Local Rule 260(a). (Doc. No. 70 at 2). Plaintiff 23 attaches an undisputed statement of facts to his instant motion. (Doc. No. 72). Defendant 24 opposes the motion for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 73). In addition to arguing the motion for 25 reconsideration is procedurally defective, Defendant refers the Court to its opposition to 26 Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 62) and argues Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment nonetheless 27 should be denied. (Doc. No. 73 at 4). The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration 28 to the extent it will consider the proposed statement of undisputed facts attached to the motion for 1 | reconsideration and Plaintiffs arguments previously raised in his motion for summary judgment 2 | in ruling on Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. 3 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 4 | circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 5 | clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 6 | Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks 7 | & citations omitted), and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement 8 | with the Court's decision, and recapitulation . . .” of that which was already considered by the 9 | Court in rendering its decision, U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. 10 | Cal. 2001) Gnternal quotation marks & citation omitted). Additionally, pursuant to this Court's 11 | Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration of an order, a party must show “what new 12 | or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown 13 | upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(). 14 As stated supra, Plaintiff included an undisputed statement of facts in his motion for 15 || reconsideration. (Doc. No. 72). Plaintiff has shown more than a disagreement with the Court’s 16 July 20, 2022 Order and provides new facts or circumstances by including an undisputed 17 || statement of facts. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and the Court’s obligation to liberally 18 || construe pro se pleadings, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently remedied the procedural 19 || deficiency of his previously filed motion for summary judgment for the Court to consider it. 20 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 21 Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 72) is GRANTED to the extent that the 22 | Court will reconsider Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 60) when ruling on 23 | Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. 24 2 Dated: _ October 5, 2022 oe Zh. Sareh Back 26 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28