(PC)Brown v. Lelis ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK ANTHONY BROWN, No. 2:20-CV-0885-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 | P.LELIS, et al, 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Brown has filed a request the court construes as seeking an extension of time to 18 | file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, and also indicates he 19 | wishes to file a motion to reconsider this court’s adoption of those findings. ECF No. 42. 20 Because this court has already adopted the findings and recommendations, the request for 21 | an extension to file objections is denied as moot. 22 A motion for reconsideration or relief from a judgment 1s appropriately brought under 23 | either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) 24 | (citing Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989)). Although Brown does not identify 25 | the basis of this motion, the court construes it as a motion for relief from a judgment or order 26 | under Rule 60(b) because it was not filed within the 28-day window required by Rule 59. See 27 | Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). 28 | Relief under Rule 60(b) should not be granted absent “extraordinary circumstances” showing a 1 | significant change in facts or law. Delay v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2007) 2 | (quoting United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993)). 3 | The moving party must show the court either committed a clear error, applied the wrong law, or 4 | rested its decision on clearly erroneous findings of fact. Delay v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039, 1043 5 | (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting SEC v. Coldicutt, 258 F.3d 939, 941 (9th Cir. 2001)). Similarly, Local 6 | Rule 230(G)(3)(4) requires a movant seeking reconsideration identify “what new or different 7 | facts or circumstances” exist, or any other grounds, to justify reconsideration of a court's prior 8 | order. E.D. Cal. R. 230Q)(3)-(4). 9 Here, Brown asserts no change in law nor does he point to evidence supporting 10 | reconsideration. Instead, Brown alleges he has been denied access to the law library and thus has 11 | been unable to research and file objections in a timely manner. Motion for Reconsideration at 2, 12 | ECF No. 42. He vaguely references case law supporting denial of summary judgment but does 13 | not explain how that law would support reconsideration. /d. at 3. Brown had over eight months 14 | since the magistrate judge granted an initial extension of time to alert the court to his difficulties 15 | in accessing the law library. ECF No. 38. Because Brown has not identified concrete grounds for 16 | motion for reconsideration, his request to file a Rule 60 motion is denied without prejudice. 17 This order resolves ECF No. 42. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 DATED: November 30, 2022. [\ (] 20 l ti / { q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45