(PC) Matthews v. Holland ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVAN L. MATTHEWS, No. 1:14-cv-1959 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 | KIM HOLLAND, Warden, 1S Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 | § 1983. The court initially dismissed this action on the ground plaintiffs claims were barred by 19 | qualified immunity. See Dismissal, ECF No. 89, at 6. Judgment was entered the same day. See 20 | Judgment, ECF No. 90. The court then denied plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment. 21 | See Alter or Amend, ECF No. 93, at 2. Plaintiff has now filed a motion for relief from judgment. 22 | See Mot., ECF No. 94. 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs relief from orders and judgments of the 24 | district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 25 | on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; .. . (3) fraud... by an 26 | opposing party, ... or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The 27 | motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time. /d. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be 28 | used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only 1 | where [there are] extraordinary circumstances.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2 | 2008). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control 3 | ....” Id. This district’s local rules also require plaintiffs to show “what new or different facts or 4 | circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, 5 | or what other grounds exist for the motion.” E.D. Cal. L-R. 230Q). “[A] motion for 6 | reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district 7 | court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 8 | intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH 9 | & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in omitted). 10 The court finds plaintiff does not present any newly discovered evidence, argue the court 11 | has committed clear error or made an unjust decision or point to a change in controlling law. See 12 | generally Mot. Instead, plaintiff reasserts the facts of his case, already reviewed by this court. 13 | But “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the [c]ourt's 14 | decision, and recapitulation of that which was already considered by the [c]ourt in rendering its 15 | decision.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) 16 | (citations and quotations omitted). The court therefore denies this motion. 17 This order resolves ECF No. 94. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 DATED: September 29, 2023. CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45