Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00362/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00362-5/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

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

BENITO REYES, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. SINGH, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:11-cv-00362-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 38.)

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Benito Reyes (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This action now proceeds with Plaintiff’s original 

Complaint, filed on March 3, 2011, against defendants Rose Martinez and Chinyere Nyenke 

(“Defendants”), for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment.1 (Doc. 1.) On February 24, 2014, the court issued a Scheduling Order 

setting pretrial deadlines for the parties to this action, including a deadline of January 5, 2015, 

for the filing of pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 20.)

 

1 On June 13, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from 

this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 17.)

Case 1:11-cv-00362-LJO-GSA Document 39 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

On December 17, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which is 

pending. (Doc. 30.) On January 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. (Docs. 3-

35.) On January 13, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file an amended motion for 

summary judgment after the court’s January 5, 2015 deadline. (Doc. 35.) On January 16, 

2015, the undersigned granted Defendant’s motion, granting Defendants leave to file an 

amended motion for summary judgment on or before January 27, 2015. (Doc. 36.) On January 

22, 2015, Defendants filed an amended motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 37.)

On January 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion to amend. 

(Doc. 38.) Given that Plaintiff’s opposition was filed after the court issued its order granting 

the motion, the court treats Plaintiff’s opposition as a motion for reconsideration of the order. 

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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 

Case 1:11-cv-00362-LJO-GSA Document 39 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 4
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

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).

Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ motion should be denied because (1) Defendants failed 

to comply with the Scheduling Order and Local Rules in submitting their motion after the 

deadline in question and in failing to properly file all of their evidentiary documents; (2) 

Plaintiff will be prejudiced because he will need to file a new opposition addressing new 

arguments in a whole new motion; and (3) there is no mention in the first motion for summary 

judgment of exhibits, raising a question whether Defendants ever meant to attach exhibits in the 

first place. Plaintiff argues that the parties have had ample time to file dispositive motions, and 

the time should not be extended. Plaintiff also argues that Defendants are acting in bad faith if 

their motion to amend is merely an attempt to file a new motion for summary judgment. 

Defendants’ motion requested time to amend the motion for summary judgment to 

attach exhibits which were inadvertently omitted from the initial motion. The court’s order 

found no evidence of bad faith by Defendants, and found that Plaintiff would not be prejudiced 

if Defendants filed an amended motion for summary judgment, because Plaintiff would be 

allowed an appropriate time to oppose the amended motion. Plaintiff’s argument that he is 

prejudiced because he will be required to file a new opposition addressing a whole new motion 

with new arguments is unpersuasive. Defendants stated an intention to only attach exhibits to 

the motion for summary judgment, not to make new arguments. The court found good cause to 

allow Defendants to amend their motion after the court’s deadline, and Plaintiff has not set 

forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature in his motion for reconsideration to induce the 

court to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration shall be denied.

///

Case 1:11-cv-00362-LJO-GSA Document 39 Filed 01/30/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration, filed on January 26, 2015, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00362-LJO-GSA Document 39 Filed 01/30/15 Page 4 of 4