Ramirez v. Clark, et al.
Filing
21
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 20 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 6/24/11. (Hellings, J)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ARTEMIO RAMIREZ,
10
CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01513-SMS PC
Plaintiff,
11
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
v.
(ECF No. 20)
12
KEN CLARK, et al.,
13
Defendants.
/
14
15
Plaintiff Artemio Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
16
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 14, 2011, an order issued
17
dismissing this action for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 16.) On May 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed
18
a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff states that his complaint was sufficient to state
19
a claim. Plaintiff argues that he is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but mere
20
conclusory statements and the possibility of misconduct are sufficient to state a cognizable claim for
21
relief. However, while “the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual
22
allegations,’ it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
23
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
24
554, 555 (2007)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
25
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” ” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
26
555).
27
Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[o]n motion and just terms,
28
the court may relieve a party . . .from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
1
1
reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence .
2
. . (3) fraud . . .; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged;
3
. . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b). Where none of these
4
factors is present the motion is properly denied. Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th
5
Cir. 1991).
6
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order
7
for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to
8
prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist.
9
Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation
10
omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control
11
. . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in
12
relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist
13
which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the
14
motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.”
15
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,
16
unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if
17
there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or
18
present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the
19
litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.
20
2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
21
22
Plaintiff’s motion is devoid of any grounds entitling Plaintiff to reconsideration of the Court’s
order and is HEREBY DENIED.
23
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
icido3
June 24, 2011
/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
