Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01297/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01297-8/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

RICHARD D. HEYER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANGELA KRUEGER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01297 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Document 28)

Plaintiff Richard D. Heyer (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on 

August 5, 2013, and the action was transferred to this Court on August 13, 2013.1 

On February 14, 2014, the Court screened the complaint and dismissed it with leave to 

amend. Plaintiff was permitted to amend only the Eighth Amendment claim.

On February 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the screening order.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 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) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on August 30, 2013.

Case 1:13-cv-01297-DLB Document 29 Filed 03/06/14 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

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). 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s basis for his motion is his belief that the Court “misinterpreted” his complaint and 

“got it wrong.” Mot. 1. Plaintiff believes that he has stated an Eighth Amendment claim against 

Defendants Young and Krueger based on his contention that (1) Defendant Krueger has gone beyond 

the performance of traditional legal functions; (2) Inmate McNutt’s son threatened to kill Plaintiff; 

and (3) inmates did not have information about Plaintiff’s criminal convictions until Defendant 

Young answered the subpoena.

Plaintiff’s contentions, however, do not merit reconsideration. At most, Plaintiff simply 

disagrees with the Court’s screening decision and the Court’s application of the law to his complaint. 

Plaintiff has not shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief, and has therefore not met 

his burden as the party moving for reconsideration. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880. 

Plaintiff’s disagreement is not sufficient grounds for relief from the order. Westlands Water Dist., 

134 F.Supp.2d at 1131.

Moreover, Plaintiff’s complaint has been dismissed with leave to amend. This means that he 

is free to allege facts in his amended complaint that he believes will cure the deficiencies identified 

in the screening order.

Case 1:13-cv-01297-DLB Document 29 Filed 03/06/14 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

Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED, with prejudice, and Plaintiff is required to comply 

with the Court’s order within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order or this action will 

be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state any claims for relief under section 1983.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:13-cv-01297-DLB Document 29 Filed 03/06/14 Page 3 of 3