Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01281/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01281-7/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KYLE S. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANDRA PENNYWELL, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN

CASE

(ECF No. 25)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 5 & 22.) 

Plaintiff‟s Complaint (ECF No. 5) and First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10) 

were screened and dismissed, with leave to amend, on August 30, 2013 and December 

2, 2013, respectively, for failure to state cognizable claims. (ECF Nos. 7 and 14.) On 

December 30, 2013, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and 

recommended dismissal with prejudice because Plaintiff had failed to cure identified 

deficiencies in his prior complaints and state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 21.) On May 

21, 2014, the District Court adopted those Findings and Recommendations and 

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 26 Filed 05/04/15 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

dismissed the case with prejudice. (ECF Nos. 23 & 24.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s March 16, 2015 motion to reopen the case. (ECF 

No. 25.) Plaintiff seeks to have his case reopened on the basis that he has mental 

disabilities which have prevented him from timely meeting the Court’s deadlines. 

Plaintiff misconstrues the reason for the Court’s prior dismissal and closure of his 

action. Plaintiff’s case was not dismissed for failure to timely respond to Court orders. 

Rather, Plaintiff’s case was dismissed with prejudice because, after three attempts, he 

was unable to state a cognizable claim. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration 

of the Court’s final screening order, the following legal standard applies.

II. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT

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) 

(quoting Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control.” 

Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103. In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 

230(j) requires a party 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 . . . 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), 

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, 

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 26 Filed 05/04/15 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

1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 

834, 856 (D. N.J. 1992)).

Plaintiff states his mental disability has affected his ability to timely respond to 

court orders. But, as noted above, his case was not dismissed for failure to respond or 

delay in responding. It was dismissed because it did not set forth a cognizable claim.. 

Plaintiff has not presented any recognizable basis for reopening his case.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen (ECF No. 25.) is HEREBY 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 26 Filed 05/04/15 Page 3 of 3