(PC) Kidwell v. Cisneros ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEQUOYAH DESERTHAWK KIDWELL, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-00290-JLT-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. ) FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE SCREENING ORDER ISSUED ON MAY 13, 2022 14 THERESA CISNEROS, et al., ) ) (Doc. 15) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 18 The Magistrate Judge screened the complaint filed in this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ¶ 19 1915A, provided the applicable legal standards, and granted Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended 20 complaint. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiff filed objections to the court’s May 13, 2022 order, which the court 21 construes as a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 15.) 22 Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[o]n motion and just terms, 23 the court may relieve a party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: 24 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence ... (3) fraud 25 ...; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; ... or (6) any 26 other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b). Where none of these factors is present the 27 motion is properly denied. Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991). 28 1 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 2 |) unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if ther 3 an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or presen 4 || evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” 5 || Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. vy. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.2009) 6 || Gnternal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). 7 None of the arguments contained in Plaintiffs filing demonstrate that the magistrate judge’s 8 || screening order finding that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim was “clearly erroneous or 9 || contrary to law.” See, e.g., U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 10 || 2001) (“[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s 11 || decision.”). To the extent Plaintiff believes that the Court has misunderstood his complaint, Plaintiff 12 || remedy is to file an amended complaint in compliance with the court’s May 13, 2022 order. 13 || Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 14 15 IS SO ORDERED. 16 | Dated: _ June 16, 2022 ( LAW pA L. wun 17 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28