Huskey v. Ahlin et al
Filing
12
ORDER DENYING 11 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/7/2011. (Jessen, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KENNETH HUSKEY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
Case No. 1:11-cv-00764 JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
vs.
PAM AHLIN, et al.,
15
(Doc. 11)
Defendants.
16
/
17
Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed October 17, 2011, (Doc. 10), the Court denied Plaintiff's
19
motion to consolidate his action with a related case, Allen v. Mayberg, et al., 1:06-cv-1801-BLW. (Doc.
20
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration filed November 3, 2011. (Doc.
21
11.)
22
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), such
23
relief is not warranted in this case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve
24
a party from an order for any reason that justifies relief. However, Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly
25
as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary
26
circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations
27
marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, “reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
28
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear
1
1
error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law” and it “may not be used to raise
2
arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in
3
the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.
4
2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). See also Local Rule 230(j) (requiring the party
5
seeking reconsideration to demonstrate, among other things, what new or different facts or circumstances
6
are claimed to exist which did not exist at the time of the prior motion).
7
Here, Plaintiff largely reiterates in the pending motion, arguments that he asserted previously in
8
his May 5, 2011 motion. However, as the Court’s previous order made clear, Plaintiff filed his
9
complaint well after the Allen Court’s deadline for consolidation. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate
10
is untimely. (Doc. 10.) Additionally, Plaintiff offers no evidence which is “newly discovered” and has
11
not demonstrated “extraordinary circumstances.” It appears that Plaintiff simply disagrees with the
12
conclusion reached by the Court in its October 17, 2011, order. Mere disagreement, however, does not
13
warrant reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(6).
14
15
Accordingly, for all the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
November 3, 2011 motion for reconsideration (Doc. 11) is DENIED.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
Dated: November 7, 2011
9j7khi
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
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?
