(PC) Oskuie v. Yakush ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAYVAN MOHAMMAD OSKUIE, No. 1:24-cv-0128 JLT BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. (Doc. 17) 14 YAKUSH, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Kayvan Mohammad Oskuie is a civil detainee who proceeded pro se in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff sought to challenge his classification as a mentally 19 disordered offender (MDO), which resulted in Plaintiff being housed at Atascadero State 20 Hospital. (See Doc. 11.) The Court found the action was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 21 477 (1994) and dismissed the action without prejudice. (Docs. 13, 15.) Following the entry of 22 judgment, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Court, which the Court construes as a motion for 23 reconsideration. (Docs. 16, 17.) 24 Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the 25 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 26 229 F. 3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 27 749 (9th Cir. 2008). “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 28 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 1 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 2 raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 3 raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 4 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks, citations omitted) (emphasis in original). 5 Generally, a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment is appropriately brought under 6 Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 7 1388 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 458–59 (9th Cir. 1995). The 8 motion must be filed no later than twenty-eight (28) days after entry of the judgment. See Fed. R. 9 Civ. P. 59(e). Under Rule 59(e), reconsideration is appropriate “if (1) the district court is 10 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an 11 initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling 12 law.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). 13 Reconsideration of a final order of the district court may also be granted under Rule 60(b) 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that “[o]n motion and just terms, the 15 court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.” 16 Id. Rule 60(b) indicates such relief may be granted “for the following reasons:” 17 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 18 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); 19 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic) misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 20 (4) the judgment is void; 21 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an 22 earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or 23 (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 24 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Additionally, pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules, when filing a motion for 26 reconsideration of an order, a party must show “what new or different facts or circumstances are 27 claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other 28 grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j). 1 Plaintiff's motion does not provide any basis for overturning the Court’s judgment 2 | pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60. Plaintiff maintains that he should be permitted to proceed with 3 | acivil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, citing Dotson v. Wilkinson, 329 F.3d 935 (6th Cir. 2003) 4 | for support. (Doc. 17 at 1-2.) Importantly, in the cited case, the Sixth Circuit did not address 5 | civil commitment determinations but rather challenges to a state’s parole procedures. Affirming 6 | the decision, the Supreme Court determined that prisoners could challenge the constitutionality of 7 | state parole procedures in a Section 1983 action. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005). 8 | Inso finding, the Supreme Court observed that neither respondent sought “immediate or speedier 9 | release into the community.” /d., 544 U.S. at 82. Furthermore, the Court observed that success 10 | challenging the constitutionality of the state parole procedures would not necessarily imply the 11 | invalidity of the respondents’ sentences or convictions. /d. In contrast, here, Plaintiff attempts to 12 | challenge the very fact of his civil commitment, which would invalidate the state’s determinations 13 || and cause immediate release. Thus, Plaintiffs reliance upon Wilkinson is misplaced. Moreover, 14 | the cited cases do not show an intervening change in the law or newly discovered evidence. The 15 | Court finds no grounds to reconsider its final order and judgment dismissing this action. 16 | Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 17) is DENIED. 17 || This action shall remain closed. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ June 22, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28