Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380-76/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

I. Introduction

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

complaint against Defendants David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza and Masiel for use of 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against Defendants Adams and Ruiz for failure 

to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Martinez, David, Miranda 

and Garcia for assault and battery in violation of state law. This action is currently set for jury trial on 

March 10, 2015. 

On January 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the attendance of fourteen incarcerated 

witnesses at trial. (ECF No. 231.) On January 26, 2015, following discussion on the record during the 

telephonic trial confirmation hearing, the Court partially granted Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance 

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR ATTENDANCE OF 

INCARCERATED WITNESSES

(ECF No. 251)

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 263 Filed 03/03/15 Page 1 of 3
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

of incarcerated witnesses. (ECF No. 240.) On January 27, 2015, the Court issued a written order 

granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses. 

Specifically, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of Inmate Pierre Davy, but denied 

his motion for the attendance of Inmates Richard A. Holcomb, Lara, Lamonte E. Rencher, Barry 

Lamon, Ivory C. Taylor, S. Mitchell, Raul Garcia, Jr., Hugo Vergara, Larry Alexander, K. Malbrue, 

George E. Jacobs, Eugene Hamilton, and Monte L. Haney. (ECF No. 241.)

On February 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order 

granting in part and denying in part his motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses. Plaintiff 

challenges the Court’s denial of Inmates Holcomb, Rencher, Lamon, Alexander, Lara, Taylor, 

Mitchell, Garcia, Malbrue, and Jacobs. (ECF No. 251.) 

II. Reconsideration

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the court to relieve a party from an order for 

any reason that justifies relief. 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) (quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party 

must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control. Id. (quotation marks and citation 

omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff 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,” and “why the facts or circumstances were 

not shown at the time of the prior 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) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted).

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 263 Filed 03/03/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Plaintiff has not identified any newly discovered evidence, the commission of clear error, or an 

intervening change in the controlling law to warrant reconsideration. Rather, Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration is based on nothing more than his mere disagreement with the Court’s decision to 

disallow the testimony of Inmates Holcomb, Rencher, Lamon, Alexander, Lara, Taylor, Mitchell, 

Garcia, Malbrue, and Jacobs at trial based on Plaintiff’s failure to meet his burden of proof pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Although Plaintiff claims that the Court erred by not allowing him 

the opportunity to respond to the issues raised in Defendants’ opposition to the motion, the Court 

allowed Plaintiff the opportunity to address the motion during the telephonic trial confirmation 

hearing. Plaintiff admits that he had received a copy of Defendants’ opposition prior to the telephonic 

hearing. (ECF No. 251, p. 1.) Further, the Court’s Second Scheduling Order did not provide for a 

reply to Defendants’ opposition. (ECF No. 213, pp. 2-3, 6.) Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the 

appointment of counsel or an investigator are unrelated to the Court’s order granting in part and 

denying in part the motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses. 

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order granting in part and 

denying in part Plaintiff’s motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 263 Filed 03/03/15 Page 3 of 3