(PC) Cato v. Avila et al, No. 1:2010cv00793 - Document 47 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS for Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 40 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/20/12: Matter referred to Judge Ishii.(Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Cato v. Avila et al Doc. 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JAMES CATO, JR., CASE NO. 1:10-cv-793-AWI-MJS (PC) 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. T. AVILA, et al. (ECF No. 40) 14 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS 15 16 / 17 18 19 Plaintiff James Cato, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on May 5, 2010, alleging violations of his Eighth 21 Amendment right to be free from excessive force. (ECF No. 1.) The Court has screened 22 Plaintiff’s complaint, found that it stated a cognizable claim, and ordered service. (ECF 23 Nos. 11, 14, & 15.) This action is proceeding against Defendants Avila, Kavanaugh, 24 Dumont, Rodriguez, Patrick, England, Bueno, Patterson, and Johnson for excessive use 25 26 27 of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.) On February 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 40) asking Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 that the District Judge review this Court’s January 23, 2012 Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 39.) In all of these motions for reconsideration, Plaintiff asks for essentially the same 4 5 6 thing: Plaintiff would like the Court to reconsider its Order. (Order, ECF No. 12.) This series of requests for reconsideration began with Plaintiff’s Motion to Return Adult Material 7 (ECF No. 3) and Motion Requesting Return of Items Mistakenly Forwarded to Court (ECF 8 No. 7). The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motions (because Plaintiff’s claims related to mail 9 confiscation had been dismissed so that the material addressed in the Motions was not 10 relevant to the action). (Order, ECF No. 12 at 2.) However, because of concern as to 11 12 13 14 whether prison regulations permitted Plaintiff to possess the material, it was returned to the prison litigation coordinator to determine whether Plaintiff could keep it. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff remains dissatisfied that the material was returned directly to him. 15 Plaintiff’s ground for reconsideration is that “it [was] not the role of the Court to be 16 concerned with the inner workings of the prison,” and that “the Magistrate’s giving Plaintiff’s 17 exhibits to a non-party is clear error.” (Mot., ECF No. 40 at 3.) Plaintiff would also like the 18 material returned to him because they are his legal exhibits. (Id.) 19 20 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 21 circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 22 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn 23 Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) 24 (internal quotations marks and citations omitted), and “[a] party seeking reconsideration 25 must show more than a disagreement with the Court ‘s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” 26 27 of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. -2- 1 Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 2 3 Plaintiff again fails to meet the requisite standard for reconsideration. The only basis for Plaintiff’s present motion is his continued disagreement with the Court’s previous 4 5 6 7 decision and action. (Mot., ECF No. 40.) He presents no new facts or evidence and cites to no legal authority for again challenging the Court’s action or, for that matter, to any authority to the effect that the action was unlawful. 8 9 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 40) be DENIED. 10 These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District 11 12 13 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any 14 party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 15 document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 16 Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days 17 after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within 18 the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 19 20 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 26 Dated: ci4d6 April 20, 2012 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 -3-
]]>
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.
