Lim v. Miller ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHONG SOOK LIM, No. 1:21-cv-01734-ADA-BAM 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF 14 LISA A. MILLER, Ph.D., et al., (Doc. 13) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Chong Sook Lim, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 7, 2021. (Doc. 1.) 19 On August 24, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 20 recommending that plaintiff’s action be dismissed because plaintiff’s first amended complaint 21 failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, sought relief from a defendant immune 22 from such relief, failed to state a cognizable claim under section 1983, and subject matter 23 jurisdiction was inappropriate. (Doc. No. 9.) The findings and recommendations were served on 24 plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 25 days after service. (Id. at 9.) No objections were filed. On September 26, 2022, after a de novo 26 review of the case, the Court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and dismissed this 27 action. (Doc. 11.) Judgment was entered the same date. (Doc. 12.) 28 /// 1 Currently before the Court is plaintiff’s request for relief from dismissal filed on October 2 6, 2022. (Doc. 13.) The Court construes the request as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 4 Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies 5 relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The rule “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to 6 prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . . ” exist. 7 Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation 8 omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control 9 . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, 10 Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are 11 claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other 12 grounds exist for the motion.” 13 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 14 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 15 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 16 Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks 17 and citations omitted). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement 18 with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . .” of that which was already considered by the 19 court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. 20 Cal. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 21 Plaintiff asserts that she “received a sudden notice that her complaint had been dismissed 22 on September 23, 2022.” (Doc. 13 at 2.) As the Court did not issue an order dismissing this 23 action until September 26, 2022, plaintiff appears to be referencing the findings and 24 recommendations issued on August 24, 2022. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff contends that she did her best to 25 file the documents in accordance with all Court orders and instructions. She suggests that the 26 Court made a mistake in rejecting her first amended complaint and asks the Court “to review the 27 plaintiff’s case again and to release the dismissal.” (Doc. 13.) 28 /// 1 The Court has considered plaintiffs request, but it finds no basis to support relief from 2 | final judgment in this action. Plaintiff does not address the original grounds for dismissal of this 3 action, and she has not presented any new grounds that would warrant reconsideration of the 4 | Court’s final order and judgment. Plaintiff's mere disagreement with the dismissal is not 5 | sufficient. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (Doc. 13) is DENIED. This action 6 | remains closed. 7 8 g | SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: _ December 1, 2022 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28