Rhinehart v. Harrington
Filing
13
ORDER DENYING 12 SECOND Motion for Reconsideration, with prejudice; No further Motions for Reconsideration shall be filed or entertained in this action, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 06/09/2011. (Martin-Gill, S)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL RHINEHART,
12
1:10-cv-00869-GSA-PC
Plaintiff,
13
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, WITH
PREJUDICE
(Doc. 12.)
vs.
14
K. HARRINGTON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
/
16
17
I.
BACKGROUND
18
Michael Rhinehart (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action
19
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 28, 2010, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United
20
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. 6.) On December 10, 2010,
21
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the undersigned’s order dismissing this action for
22
failure to state a claim. (Doc. 8.) On May 25, 2011, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration.
23
(Doc. 11.) On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration, which is now before
24
the Court. (Doc. 12.)
25
II.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
26
Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies
27
relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice
28
and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d
1
1
737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must
2
demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks
3
and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff
4
to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or
5
were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”
6
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,
7
unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if
8
there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma
9
GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted,
10
and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s
11
decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its
12
decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).
13
Plaintiff requests the Court to vacate the judgment of December 3, 2010, reopen the case, and
14
allow him leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiff offers no basis for his motion except for "fairness
15
and justice" because he "has no attorney and must prosecute this case alone." (Motion, Doc. 12 at
16
1.) As such, Plaintiff has not shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief, and has
17
therefore not met his burden as the party moving for reconsideration. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc.,
18
571 F.3d at 880. Therefore, Plaintiff's second motion for reconsideration shall be denied, with
19
prejudice.
20
III.
CONCLUSION
21
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
22
1.
23
Plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration, filed on June 7, 2011, is DENIED with
prejudice; and
24
2.
No further motions for reconsideration shall be filed or entertained in this action.
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
Dated:
6i0kij
June 9, 2011
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?
