Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00843/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00843-25/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

DAMEN D. RABB,

Plaintiff,

v.

ESTEVEN FIGUEROA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS CONSTRUED AS MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 82)

Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 27, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s 

participation in his deposition, imposed costs, and modified the scheduling order. (ECF No. 81.) 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s objections to the Court’s September 27, 2024, 

order construed as a motion for reconsideration, filed October 15, 2024. (ECF No. 82.) 

I.

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 

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 83 Filed 10/16/24 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

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 objects to the Court’s decision granteing Defendants’ motion to compel 

Plaintiff’s participation in his deposition, imposed costs, and modified the scheduling order. 

However, Plaintiff does not present the Court with any newly-discovered evidence or show that 

the Court committed clear error in its rulings. Nor does he point to any intervening change in 

controlling law. Instead, Plaintiff merely disagrees with the court’s decision and recapitulates that 

which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails 

to show any reason why the Court should reconsider its September 27, 2024, order, and the Court 

shall deny his motion for reconsideration.

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 83 Filed 10/16/24 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

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration, filed on October 15, 2024 (ECF No. 82) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 83 Filed 10/16/24 Page 3 of 3