Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00781/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00781-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

DONTE ROLANDO HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

H.A. RIOS, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:09-cv-00781-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 155)

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed 

pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 

U.S. 388 (1971). On August 20 2015, the matter proceeded to a bench trial on Plaintiff’s 

First and Fifth Amendment claims against Defendants Estrada, Gonzaga, Cobb, 

Zaragoza, and Valero for interference with Plaintiff’s mail. (ECF No. 148.) During trial, 

judgment was granted as to Defendants Estrada, Gonzaga, and Valero pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c). On December 3, 2015, the Court issued a 

memorandum of decision and judgment in favor of Defendants Cobb and Zaragoza. 

(ECF No. 153.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s December 21, 2015 motion for reconsideration of the 

judgment in favor of Cobb and Zaragoza. (ECF No. 155.) Defendants filed an opposition. 

(ECF No. 156.) Plaintiff filed no reply. The matter is submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Case 1:09-cv-00781-MJS Document 157 Filed 03/23/16 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

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“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). 

“A motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence 

for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised in earlier litigation.” Id. 

Moreover, “recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before 

rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.” U.S. v. Westlands

Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony 

Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 834, 856-57 (D.N.J. 1992)). Similarly, Local Rule 230(j) 

requires that a party seeking reconsideration show that “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 . . . .”

Additionally, Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from a final judgment or 

order on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 

discovered evidence . . . ; (3) fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or misconduct by an 

opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . ; it is 

based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it 

prospectively is no longer equitable; 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 bears the burden of demonstrating that relief under 

Rule 60(b) is appropriate. Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1988).

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff first argues that Defendant Cobb’s testimony at trial should not be 

credited. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Cobb testified that he had no reason to 

Case 1:09-cv-00781-MJS Document 157 Filed 03/23/16 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

believe specified mail at issue in this case was contraband. Furthermore, according to 

Plaintiff, Cobb admitted during discovery that he confiscated this mail. 

These facts do not present grounds for reconsideration and, in any event, 

misrepresent the evidence before the Court. Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, Cobb 

testified that he believed the specified mail was contraband. The admissions referred to 

by Plaintiff are not before the Court.1 According to Defendant, Defendant Cobb admitted 

during discovery that the mail was contraband, but did not admit that he personally 

confiscated it. In this regard, Cobb’s testimony appears to be consistent with his 

discovery responses. The Court finds no basis for reconsideration of the judgment with 

respect to Defendant Cobb.

Plaintiff next argues that Defendant Zaragoza’s testimony that certain of Plaintiff’s 

mail constituted contraband should not be credited. He points to exhibits that he believes 

contradict Zaragoza’s testimony. These arguments were raised and considered at trial. 

Ultimately, the Court did not credit Plaintiff’s contrary testimony regarding the items at 

issue. Plaintiff’s reiteration of this argument does not present a basis for reconsideration.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is HEREBY 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

The Court received mail from Plaintiff on August 24, 2015, indicating that the admissions were enclosed. 

(ECF No. 149.) However, no exhibits or attachments were included with Plaintiff’s letter. 

Case 1:09-cv-00781-MJS Document 157 Filed 03/23/16 Page 3 of 3