Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01022/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01022-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROAS V. BARNETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID NORMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01022-GBC (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO RECONSIDER

(Doc. 137)

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Troas V. Barnett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint

commencing this action on August 9, 2005. Doc. 1. On April 13, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff’s

motion to compel filed February 10, 2012. Doc. 135. On May 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to

reconsider the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Doc. 137. On May 24, 2012,

Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Doc. 138. 

II. Standard Governing Motions for Reconsideration

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on

grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse

1

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 141 Filed 06/25/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

party, . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, in any event “not

more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin

Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983)

(en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce

the court to reverse its prior decision. See e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634

F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514

(9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988). The Ninth Circuit has stated that “[c]lause

60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding clauses.’” Corex Corp. v.

United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981); accord LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser

Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, “the clause is reserved for

‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id. When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j)(3)

& (4) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which

did not exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of

the prior motion.” 

A. Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Compel

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff states that “Defendants did not consult the proper

authority to produce the personnel records of Defendants.” Doc. 137 at 5. According to Plaintiff,

the “State Board of Control/Attorney General” has possession of Defendants’ personnel files. Doc.

137 at 2. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate “new or different facts or circumstances . . . which did not

exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior

motion.” Plaintiff’s status as a pro se prisoner is not enough to meet this standard. Moreover, as

Plaintiff believes that desired documents are with a third party, the proper procedure is to subpoena

the third parties and the Court explained in its order dated October 15, 2011, that Plaintiff must pay

the fees associated with subpoenas of third parties. Doc. 126. 

///

///

2

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 141 Filed 06/25/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration filed on May 11, 2012, is

HEREBY DENIED. Doc. 137.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 25, 2012 

0jh02o UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

3

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 141 Filed 06/25/12 Page 3 of 3