Alvarez v. Local Union 755 ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SERGIO ALVAREZ, No. 1:23-cv-01163 JLT EPG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN CASE 13 v. (Doc. 14). 14 LOCAL UNION 755, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Sergio Alvarez, proceeding pro se, generally alleged discrimination by Defendant in his 18 initial complaint filed on August 4, 2023. (Doc. 1) The assigned magistrate judge screened the 19 complaint (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302) and concluded that Plaintiff failed to 20 state any claims. (Doc. 8) The Court granted him leave to amend. (Doc. 8.) After Plaintiff filed 21 an amended complaint, the assigned magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiff failed to allege 22 facts sufficient to support his claims for discrimination or violation of the Americans with 23 Disabilities Act. (Doc. 10 at 2-3.) The magistrate judge recommended that the action be 24 dismissed with prejudice following Plaintiff’s failure to cure the pleading deficiencies previously 25 identified in the screening order. (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. 11.) On October 26 24, 2023, the Court adopted the findings and recommendations in full, dismissed the case with 27 prejudice, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the action. (Doc. 12.) 28 On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the case, stating, in part, as follows: 1 “I would like a [reconsideration] to open this case because I never got a notice and why would [it] 2 be close[d] if I had a right to sue notice plus I turn[ed] in [e]vidence [and] email of my co-worker 3 and he was willing to testify and everything was turn in . . . .” (Doc. 14.) The Court construes 4 this as a motion brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. 5 Pursuant to Rule 60(b), “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its 6 legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.” Id. Rule 60(b) states that such 7 relief may be granted “for the following reasons:” 8 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 9 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 10 59(b); 11 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic) misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 12 (4) the judgment is void; 13 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is 14 based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or 15 (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 16 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 18 Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the 19 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 20 Bishop, 229 F. 3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 21 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). In seeking 22 reconsideration under Rule 60, the moving party “must demonstrate both injury and 23 circumstances beyond his control.” Harvest, 531 F.3d at 749 (internal quotation marks, citation 24 omitted). 25 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 26 unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 27 there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments 28 or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 1 litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th 2 | Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks, citations omitted) (emphasis in original). 3 Plaintiff fails to offer any proper grounds for reconsideration of the Court’s order 4 | dismissing this case with prejudice. Instead, Plaintiff relies on his amended complaint, which the 5 | Court found insufficient. Moreover, though Plaintiff claims that he did not receive “a notice,” 6 | clearly, he received the findings and recommendations (because he objected to them) and this 7 | Court’s order closing the case (because he now seeks to reopen it). For the reasons given above, 8 | Plaintiff's motion to reopen this case (Doc. 14) is DENIED. This action remains closed, and no 9 | further motions will be entertained. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 | Dated: _ January 26, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28