Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03424/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03424-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

D. L. TAYLOR, C-05467, 

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

M. J. JOHNSON, Correctional Officer,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 12-3424 CRB (PR)

ORDER 

(Dkt. #93 & 94)

On November 4, 2015, the court granted defendant’s motion for summary

judgment on plaintiff’s excessive force claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, and the clerk entered judgment in favor of defendant.

On December 1, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and, on

December 23, 2015, a copy of the motion he sent to the Ninth Circuit was

forwarded and filed as a second motion for reconsideration in this court. 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (dkt. # 93 & 94) of the court’s November 4,

2015 order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides for reconsideration where

one of more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could

not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse

party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; (6) any other

reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5

F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). But plaintiff does no more than repeat the same

Case 3:12-cv-03424-CRB Document 95 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 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 2

claims and arguments he previously presented, and assert that the court got it

wrong. This is not enough to justify reconsideration. See Carroll v. Nakatani,

342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (reconsideration is not a vehicle to rehash

arguments previously presented or to raise arguments or present evidence that

could have been raised or presented earlier); Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp.

v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981) (motion for reconsideration is

not a substitute for appeal or a means for attacking some perceived court error). 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Jan. 5, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.12\Taylor, D.12-3424.deny_recon.wpd

Case 3:12-cv-03424-CRB Document 95 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 2