1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD A. EVANS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00818-LJO-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. (ECF No. 16) 14 S. SHERMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Richard A. Evans is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on June 12, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) 19 On June 18, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 20 recommending that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that Plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full in order to 22 proceed with this action. (ECF No. 7.) 23 On August 6, 2019, the undersigned issued an order adopting the findings and 24 recommendations in full, denying Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and 25 ordering Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full within twenty-one (21) days from the date 26 of service of the order. (ECF No. 10.) 27 On September 11, 2019, the undersigned dismissed this action without prejudice due to 28 Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s August 6, 2019 order and failure to pay the $400.00 1 filing fee in full. (ECF No. 11.) 2 Currently before the Court is a letter from Plaintiff, filed on November 8, 2019. (ECF No. 3 16.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s letter as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s August 4 6, 2019 order adopting the June 18, 2019 findings and recommendations and the Court’s 5 September 11, 2019 order dismissing this action. 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) permits the Court to relieve a party from an 7 order for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable 8 remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary 9 circumstances” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation 10 marks and citation omitted). “A party moving for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must demonstrate 11 both injury and circumstances beyond [their] control[.]” Id. (internal quotation marks and 12 citation omitted). Additionally, Local Rule 230(j) requires that, when a party makes a motion for 13 reconsideration, the party must show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to 14 exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion” and 15 “why the facts and circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” 16 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 17 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 18 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 19 Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks 20 and citation omitted). Therefore, “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 21 disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered 22 by the [C]ourt before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” 23 United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal 24 quotation marks and citation omitted). 25 Here, Plaintiff contends that his rights were violated “when the U.S. Eastern District 26 (Fresno) closed [this case]. Money was deducted from my trust account, and I was denied in 27 forma pauperis, for improperly imposed strikes[.]” (ECF No. 16.) However, Plaintiff has failed 28 to provide any evidence that any money was deducted from his trust account to pay a portion, or 1 all, of the filing fee in this case. Further, Plaintiff’s motion fails to present “new or different facts 2 or circumstances … which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion,” as required 3 by Local Rule 230(j). Finally, the Court’s order adopting the June 18, 2019 findings and 4 recommendations was issued following a de novo review of the entire case, and Plaintiff has 5 failed to set forth any additional grounds that the Court did not consider that would entitle him to 6 relief from the Court’s judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 16), is HEREBY DENIED. 8 This action remains closed. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: November 20, 2019 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28