Pierce v. The US Government and Its Officers as Federal Judges et al, No. 1:2016cv01361 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER re Plaintiff's 5 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/05/2016. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 SEAVON PIERCE, 6 7 8 9 1:16-cv-1361-LJO-BAM Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 5) v. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND ITS OFFICERS AS FEDERAL JUDGES, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 The Court recently denied Plaintiff Seavon Pierce’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 13 dismissed this case subject to re-filing accompanied by the $400.00 filing fee. Doc. 3. Plaintiff now 14 moves for reconsideration of that order. 15 The motion for reconsideration is governed by Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and Rule 230 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 17 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be 18 utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . . exist.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th 19 Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and 20 circumstances beyond his control.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking 21 reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or 22 circumstances are claimed to exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 23 24 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is 25 an intervening change in controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 1 1 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), and “[a] party 2 seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the court’s decision, and 3 recapitulation . . . of that which was already considered by the court in rendering its decision.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must 4 set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See 5 Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 646, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), rev’d on other 6 grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 7 8 Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Plaintiff has made no showing that would justify reconsideration of the Court’s order. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ October 5, 2016 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2
]]>
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.
