Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01966/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01966-8/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

DION ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. CAHLANDER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01966 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[ECF No. 32]

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS AND MOTION FOR CHANGE 

OF VENUE

[ECF No. 33]

Plaintiff Dion Anderson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed his 

Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) On June 7, 2013, the Court screened the complaint and dismissed it with 

leave to amend. (ECF No. 15.) On August 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. 

(ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff then moved to file a Second Amended Complaint on July 10, 2014, which 

the Court granted on August 25, 2014. On August 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended 

Complaint (SAC). (ECF No. 24.) On September 9, 2015, the Magistrate Judge screened the SAC 

and issued a Findings and Recommendation that recommended the SAC be dismissed with prejudice 

for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was granted fourteen days to file objections. Over fourteen days 

passed and no objections were filed. On October 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for 

reconsideration along with objections and a motion for change of venue.

Case 1:12-cv-01966-LJO-DLB Document 36 Filed 10/28/15 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

2

DISCUSSION

 Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake, inadvertence, 

surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could 

not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether 

previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) 

the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) 

“is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized 

only where extraordinary circumstances ...” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 

2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both 

injury and circumstances beyond his control....” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or 

different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon 

such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

“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 an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma 

GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted, 

and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's 

decision, and recapitulation ...” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its 

decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D.Cal.2001). 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 Kern–Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 

1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

Here, Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider the order dismissing the action in light of 

his objections. Plaintiff states he signed and submitted his objections on September 22, 2015, which 

was within the time provided for filing objections. For unknown reasons, the objections were not 

filed until October 7, 2015. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations and finds that Plaintiff’s arguments do not merit 

Case 1:12-cv-01966-LJO-DLB Document 36 Filed 10/28/15 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

3

reconsideration of the Court’s order. 

Plaintiff complains that the Magistrate Judge and the undersigned are clearly biased in light 

of the Court’s rulings. A judge must disqualify himself if “his impartiality might be reasonably 

questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or if “he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or 

personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). 

“[J]udicial rulings or information acquired by the court in its judicial capacity will rarely support 

recusal.” United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Liteky v. United 

States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994)). The objective test for determining whether

recusal is required is whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude 

that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147 (quotation 

marks and citation omitted); Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038. 1043 (9th Cir. 2008). “Adverse 

findings do not equate to bias,” Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147, and in this instance, Plaintiff disagrees 

with the Court’s ruling against him, which does not support recusal or a change of venue.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration and 

change of venue are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01966-LJO-DLB Document 36 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 3