(PC) Solvey v. Gates ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STANLEY H. SOLVEY, 1:19-cv-01444-JLT-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 vs. (ECF No. 52.) 14 S. GATES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Stanley H. Solvey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s 22 First Amended Complaint filed on January 14, 2020, against defendant Dr. Andrew Zepp 23 (“Defendant”) for refusing to provide Plaintiff with sufficient pain medication as he awaited 24 surgery, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 14.) 25 On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant Zepp’s motion to modify the 26 Scheduling Order, which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order 27 issued on May 11, 2022, which granted Defendant Zepp’s motion to modify the Scheduling Order 28 to extend the deadline for filing dispositive motions. (ECF No. 52.) 1 II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 2 Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake, 3 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable 4 diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) 5 fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an 6 opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. 7 Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest 8 injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. 9 Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The 10 moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. 11 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local 12 Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed 13 to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds 14 exist for the motion.” 15 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 16 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 17 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 18 Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks 19 and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 20 disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already 21 considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 22 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly 23 convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. 24 v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in 25 part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 26 Here, Plaintiff objects to the Court’s decision to grant defendant Zepp an extension of the 27 deadline in the scheduling order to file dispositive motions. Modification of a scheduling order 28 requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of 1 due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 2 Plaintiff argues that defense counsel has not been diligent in the filing of a dispositive motion. 3 Plaintiff contends he will be prejudiced by an enlargement of time because a lapse in time will 4 cause diminished witness recollection, credibility issues at trial, and a violation of Rule 1 of the 5 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s requirement of “the just, speedy, and inexpensive 6 determination of every action.” 7 The district court possesses broad discretion to manage its own docket, which includes 8 inherent power to control disposition of causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for 9 itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55, 57 S.Ct. 10 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936). Plaintiff does not present the Court with any newly-discovered 11 evidence or show that the Court committed clear error in its ruling. Nor does he point to any 12 intervening change in controlling law. Instead, Plaintiff merely disagrees with the Court’s 13 decision and recapitulates that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its 14 decision. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to show any reason why the Court should reconsider its 15 prior order, and therefore the Court will deny his motion for reconsideration. 16 III. CONCLUSION 17 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for 18 reconsideration, filed on May 20, 2022, is DENIED. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: July 1, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28