(PC) Evans v. Beck, et al., No. 1:2012cv00284 - Document 30 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 29 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration be DENIED re 27 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/31/2012. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Evans v. Beck, et al. Doc. 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 ANTHONY RAY EVANS, CASE No. 1:12-cv-00284-AWI-MJS (PC) 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 12 v. 13 14 JUDGE DENNIS L. BECK, et al., (ECF No. 29) 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS 16 / 17 18 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 19 Plaintiff Anthony Ray Evans is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) 21 Plaintiff has declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Decline Jurisdiction, ECF No. 4.) 22 On July 27, 2012, the Court screened and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for 23 failure to state a claim, but gave Plaintiff leave to amend. (Order Dismiss. Compl., ECF 24 No. 11.) On August 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (First Am. 25 Compl., ECF No. 14.) On August 17, 2012, Plaintiff requested leave to file a 26 supplemental pleading (Mot. for Leave, ECF Nos. 15) which the Court construed as a 27 motion to file an amended complaint and granted. (Order Granting Leave, ECF No. 16.) 28 On August 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Second. Am. -1Dockets.Justia.com 1 Compl., ECF No. 18.) On September 4, 2012, Plaintiff lodged a Second Amended 2 Complaint. (Lodged Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 21.) Pursuant to Plaintiff’s 3 September 17, 2012 Notification of Operative Pleading (Notification, ECF No. 24), the 4 Clerk filed the lodged Second Amended Complaint as the Third Amended Complaint. 5 (Third Am. Compl., ECF No. 27.) The Court screened the Third Amended Complaint on October 4, 2012 and 6 7 dismissed it for failure to state a claim, giving Plaintiff leave to amend solely as to his 8 2012 Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendant Matzen. (Order Dismiss. Third 9 Am. Compl., ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s October 4, 10 2012 Order Dismissing Third Amended Complaint, styled as a Motion for 11 Reconsideration. (Mot. Recons., ECF No. 29.) The Motion for Reconsideration is now 12 before the Court. 13 II. 14 15 16 ANALYSIS Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the October 4, 2012 Order Dismissing the Third Amended Complaint with Leave to Amend shall be denied. Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason 17 that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to 18 prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary 19 circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). The 20 moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .“ 21 Id. In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to identify 22 the motion or order in issue and when it was made, and show “what new or different 23 facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon 24 such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 25 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 26 circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 27 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn 28 Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009), -2- 1 and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the 2 [c]ourt's decision, and recapitulation . . .” of that which was already considered by the 3 court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 4 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 5 Here Plaintiff argues matters already considered by the Court in its October 4th 6 Order, and offers no new or different facts, circumstances, or other grounds for 7 reconsideration. 8 He argues the Magjstrate erred in finding an “identity of claims” sufficient under 9 res judicata doctrine to bar re-litigation of his 2010 Eighth Amendment claims decided 10 in Anthony Ray Evans v. Gonzales1 because the claims in Gonzales did not arise from 11 the same facts alleged in this action. However, he provides no factual or legal support 12 for this argument, and does not controvert the Magistrate’s finding that as to such 13 claims both Gonzales and the instant action stem from an identical nucleus of facts, 14 present identical evidence, and allege infringement of the same federal rights. Claim 15 preclusion bars litigation of claims that were or could have been raised in a prior action. 16 Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) 17 Plaintiff argues that claims in the original Complaint filed in this action are not 18 identical to claims in the Third Amended Complaint. Such a claim, even if true, would 19 not bar application of res judicata arising from the entry of final judgment in Gonzales. 20 He argues that the Magistrate erred in finding the claims alleged in his Third 21 Amended Complaint insufficient to state a cognizable federal claim even absent the 22 application of res judicata. This is merely a re-hash of matters previously before the 23 Magistrate, unsupported by any new or different facts or circumstances, or other 24 grounds and is not sufficient to support the requested relief. 25 26 He argues that he should not be prevented from filing amended pleadings on claims barred by res judicata. This argument is unsupported in, and contrary to 27 28 1 E.D. Cal. Case No. 1:10-cv-01680-DLB PC. -3- 1 applicable law. Likewise his argument that application of res judicata, and leave to 2 amend as granted in the Court’s October 4th Order, somehow prevent him from 3 exhausting remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) is unsupported 4 and lacks merit. Finally, he argues that the Magistrate improperly denied him leave to supplement 5 6 his prior operative pleading(s). Such denial is not property before the Court, and the 7 request thereon lacks support. The instant Motion for Reconsideration seeks relief only 8 as to the October 4, 2012 Order. The Motion for Reconsideration fails to notice relief as 9 to any order denying supplemental pleading. Any such request for relief is not properly 10 before the Court. Local Rule 230(j). Moreover, Plaintiff provides no new facts or other 11 grounds in support of relief from denial of any motion to supplement. His argument that 12 denial of leave to file a supplemental pleading somehow has prevented his exhaustion 13 of remedies under the PLRA is unsupported and lacks merit. 14 Plaintiff has been liberally afforded opportunities to file amended pleadings and 15 to clarify which pleading he desires to be operative. Nothing before the Court suggests 16 harm or prejudice in these regards. Plaintiff provides no good cause for the reconsideration relief he seeks, no 17 18 evidence that he has been or will be prejudiced in any measurable way if the relief is 19 not granted, and no clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief from the October 20 4, 2012 Order Dismissing the Third Amended Complaint with Leave to Amend. 21 III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 22 Plaintiff has shown no basis for granting a motion for reconsideration. 23 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF 24 No. 29) be DENIED by the District Judge. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 26 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 27 Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any 28 party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a -4- 1 document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 2 Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) 3 days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections 4 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez 5 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: 12eob4 October 31, 2012 Michael J. Seng /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5-
]]>
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.
