Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00550/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00550-2/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

LAWRENCE M. WEISWASSER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00550-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND REQUIRING

PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S

ORDER WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 10)

Plaintiff Lawrence M. Weiswasser (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 20, 2007,

United States Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder screened plaintiff’s complaint, and ordered

plaintiff to either file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court or notify

the Court of his willingness to proceed only against defendant Rose. (Doc. 8.) On March 5, 2007,

plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration in which he asserts that he would like to proceed with

his complaint against all the defendants he named or he would like to withdraw his complaint. (Doc.

10.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on

grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse

party, . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, in any event “not

more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.

Case 1:06-cv-00550-LJO -SMS Document 11 Filed 03/12/07 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

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin

Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983)

(en banc). 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 e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634

F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th

Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015, 108 S.Ct. 1752, 100 L.Ed.2d 214 (1988). The Ninth Circuit

has stated that “[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding

clauses.’” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986)

(quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981)). Accordingly, “the clause is

reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id. When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local

Rule 78-230(k) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist

which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the

motion.”

Plaintiff has set forth no grounds entitling him to reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s

order. Plaintiff may either amend his complaint or proceed on his original complaint against

defendant Rose only. In the alternative, plaintiff has the right to voluntarily dismiss this action if he

so chooses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is HEREBY DENIED, and plaintiff SHALL comply

with the Court’s order of February 20, 2007, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this

order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00550-LJO -SMS Document 11 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 2