(PC) Fahie v. Mercy Hospital et al, No. 1:2009cv01024 - Document 31 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER denying 30 Motion for relief from final judgment signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/22/2011. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Fahie v. Mercy Hospital et al Doc. 31 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ANTONIO FAHIE, 9 10 CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01024-LJO-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT v. (DOC. 30) 11 12 13 MERCY HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Antonio Fahie (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner, proceeding pro se in 16 this civil rights action. On December 3, 2010, the magistrate judge assigned to this action issued 17 a Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) recommending dismissal of this action for failure to 18 state a claim. On February 2, 2011, the undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendations 19 in full, and issued judgment accordingly. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for relief 20 from judgment, filed February 25, 2011. Doc. 30. 21 A court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order for, inter alia, mistake, 22 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Motions to reconsider are 23 committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 24 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). A party 25 seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the 26 court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. 27 Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 28 (9th Cir. 1987). This Court’s Local Rule 230(j) requires a party seeking reconsideration to 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 demonstrate “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not 2 exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 3 Plaintiff contends that he was ignorant of the law regarding his claim. Plaintiff argues 4 that he was unaware that a claim which amounted at most to negligence failed to state a claim 5 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests that the Court dismiss this action pursuant to 6 Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal in order for Plaintiff to avoid accruing a strike under 28 7 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 8 9 Plaintiff provides no good cause that merits relief from judgment in this action. The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaints three times, each time informing Plaintiff that a claim for 10 negligence fails to state a claim under § 1983. See Order, filed Oct. 28, 2009, Doc. 7; F&R, filed 11 May 19, 2010, Doc. 11; Order Adopting F&R, filed June 21, 2010, Doc. 18; F&R, filed Dec. 3, 12 2010, Doc. 26; Order Adopting F&R, filed Feb. 2, 2011, Doc. 28. Dismissal for failure to state a 13 claim was proper. 14 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for relief from final 15 judgment, filed February 25, 2011 is DENIED. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: b9ed48 July 22, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
