Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00361/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00361-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

On September 4, 2014, the Court adopted a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) and 

dismissed this case. See Doc. No. 8. On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60. See Doc. No. 10. In Plaintiff’s 

motion, he argues that Defendant Seng, who is a Magistrate Judge of the Eastern District of 

California, committed judicial misconduct in prior cases filed by Plaintiff, has improperly denied 

motions to recuse himself, is not an impartial jurist, has improperly construed Plaintiff’s 

complaints so as to deny relief even though the complaints state cognizable claims, and has 

engaged in conduct that are worthy of contempt proceedings. See id. 

“While Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the 

rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and 

conservation of judicial resources.” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014); Kona 

Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 883 n.6, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 59(e) amendments 

are appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed 

clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in 

controlling law. Wood, 759 F.3d at 1121; Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890. This standard is a “high 

hurdle.” Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001). Similarly, 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 

ZANE HUBBARD,

Plaintiff

v.

MICHAEL J. SENG, and MOLLY 

DWYER,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:14-CV-361 AWI GSA 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. No. 10)

Case 1:14-cv-00361-AWI-GSA Document 11 Filed 08/13/15 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

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 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). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s 

decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering 

its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” Teamsters Local 617 Pension & 

Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc., 282 F.R.D. 216, 220 (D. Ariz. 2012); United States v. 

Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).

Plaintiff has failed to show that he is entitled to relief under Rule 59 or Rule 60. Plaintiff 

has not presented newly discovered evidence, or shown mistake, fraud, clear error, manifest 

injustice, or extraordinary circumstances. Magistrate Judge Seng had nothing to do with F&R, or 

with the order adopting the F&R that closed this case. Moreover, at bottom, Plaintiff is simply 

complaining about judicial decisions by Magistrate Judge Seng that Plaintiff himself perceives as 

incorrect, and this Court’s conclusion that relief is unavailable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s mere 

disagreement with either Magistrate Judge Seng’s rulings in prior cases or this Court’s adoption of 

an F&R is not a legitimate basis for reconsideration. See Apollo Group, 282 F.R.D. at 220; 

Westlands Water, 134 F.Supp.2d at 1131.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERD that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 

No. 10) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00361-AWI-GSA Document 11 Filed 08/13/15 Page 2 of 2