Norberto Medina v. James D. Hartley et al
Filing
25
ORDER DENYING Motion for Reconsideration, With Prejudice 24 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/24/11. (Hellings, J)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
NORBERTO MEDINA,
10
11
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00413-SKO PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION, WITH PREJUDICE
v.
(Doc. 24)
12
13
JAMES D. HARTLEY, et al.,
Defendants.
/
14
15
Plaintiff Norberto Medina, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
16
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 11, 2010. On June 14, 2011, this action
17
was dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 1983. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
18
On June 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed an objection, which the Court construes as a motion for
19
reconsideration. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).
20
Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies
21
relief, and it “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice . . . only
22
where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008)
23
(internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury
24
and circumstances beyond his control. . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
25
Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what new or different facts
26
or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion,
27
or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown
28
at the time of the prior motion.”
1
1
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,
2
unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if
3
there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or
4
present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the
5
litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.
6
2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
7
Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in dismissing his case for failure to state a claim.
8
However, Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s decision is not grounds for reconsideration. The
9
Court thoroughly reviewed Plaintiff’s original and amended complaints. Plaintiff’s allegations did
10
not support a plausible claim that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk
11
of harm to Plaintiff’s safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and Plaintiff’s motion for
12
reconsideration contains no facts that suggest the existence of a plausible Eighth Amendment claim.
13
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
14
550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). Prisons are inherently dangerous institutions, Lewis v.
15
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 391, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (1996) (quotation marks omitted), and the allegation that
16
Plaintiff was attacked by another inmate does not, in and of itself, support an Eighth Amendment
17
claim, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994). Plaintiff’s factual allegations
18
do not support his bare contention that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety and
19
dismissal of the action was therefore appropriate. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847.
20
21
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed June 22, 2011, is HEREBY
DENIED, with prejudice.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated:
ie14hj
June 24, 2011
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
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?
