Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00016/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00016-7/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVAN MATTHEWS,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. S. ALAMEIDA, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00016-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION, AND DIRECTING

CLERK’S OFFICE TO RETURN PLAINTIFF’S

PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT TO

PLAINTIFF 

(Doc. 26)

NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF THAT NO FURTHER

MOTIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE

COURT UNLESS THEY RELATE TO A

PROPERLY FILED APPEAL

Plaintiff Ivan Matthews (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 29, 2006, the Court

dismissed this action, without prejudice, for failure to obey the Court’s order and failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. On April 5, 2006, plaintiff filed an opposition to the

Court’s order. There is no provision for an “opposition” to the Court’s order. The Court shall

construe plaintiff’s motion as one 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

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

///

Case 1:05-cv-00016-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 04/21/06 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

 The Court notes that one of plaintiff’s arguments in particular is not only without merit but appears to be 1

an intentional misrepresentation. In his motion on page 2 at lines 7 through 10, plaintiff takes issue with the Court’s

statement that he could have sought an extension of time and asserts that he was unaware that he could have sought

an extension of time. Although ultimately irrelevant because plaintiff’s ignorance of the various procedural options

2

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, 108 S.Ct. 1752, 100 L.Ed.2d 214 (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.’” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986)

(quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981)). Accordingly, “the clause is

reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id. When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local

Rule 78-230(k) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist

which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the

motion.” 

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and are not the place for parties to make new

arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc.,

841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir.1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the Court to rethink

what it has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D.Ariz.1998).

Plaintiff has set forth no meritorious arguments in support of his motion for reconsideration. Rather,

plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s decision to reject his objections to the Findings and

Recommendations, adopt the Findings and Recommendations, and dismiss this action. A motion

for reconsideration is not a vehicle by which to make additional objections to the Findings and

Recommendations or to argue one’s disagreement with the Court’s order. There are no grounds

supporting reconsideration. 

1

Case 1:05-cv-00016-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 04/21/06 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

under the the law would not have compelled a different conclusion, the Court takes judicial notice of case number

CV-F-99-6310-OWW-SMS-P Matthews v. Jordan, in which plaintiff filed several motions seeking an extension of

time. (Docs. 23, 39.) Thus, plaintiff’s assertion that he was unaware of this option appears to have been made in bad

faith.

3

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed April 5, 2006, is HEREBY DENIED,

WITH PREJUDICE.

2. This action has been dismissed, and therefore, the Court will not review plaintiff’s

proposed amended complaint. The Clerk’s Office shall return plaintiff’s proposed

amended complaint to him. If plaintiff again submits his amended complaint in this

case, the Court will not again extend plaintiff the courtesy of returning it.

3. This Court will consider no further motions by plaintiff seeking relief from the

dismissal of this action. Any further motions filed by plaintiff not related to a

properly filed appeal will not be considered and will not receive any response from

the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00016-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 04/21/06 Page 3 of 3