Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01625/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01625-30/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

Plaintiff George Jacobs is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the 

jurisdiction of the United States magistrate judge. Local Rule 302.

On February 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed two separate, but similar, motions for reconsideration of 

the Court’s January 23, 2015, order lifting the stay of trial-setting proceedings. 

Because Defendant Crotty filed bankruptcy, on June 23, 2011, the Court stayed the case 

against Defendant Crotty pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), pending resolution of the bankruptcy 

proceedings. (ECF No. 58.) On April 24, 2013, the Court stayed trial-setting proceedings in this 

action pending resolution of Defendant Crotty’s bankruptcy proceedings. (ECF No. 118.) 

On January 23, 2015, the Court lifted the stay of the trial-setting proceedings, but left in place 

the stay of proceedings as to Defendant Crotty pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). 

GEORGE E. JACOBS IV,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ALEXANDER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:05-cv-01625-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

[ECF Nos. 149, 150]

Case 1:05-cv-01625-SAB Document 151 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

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1) 

mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due 

diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; 

(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc, 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

(9th Cir. 1993). 

Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently or freely granted; they are not a substitute 

for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. See Twentieth Century-Fox Film 

Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). “‘[T]he major grounds that justify 

reconsideration involve an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or 

the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians 

v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 

F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)). 

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred by “prejudicially 

dismissing Defendant Crotty from this action.” Plaintiff is mistaken. The Court did not dismiss 

Defendant Crotty from the action; rather, the Court lifted the stay of the entire proceedings and 

allowed the action to proceed to trial against Defendants Nelson, Watson, Chan, McGregor, 

Alexander, Carrasco, Blankenship, Jobb, Granillo, Johnson, and Salazar aka Adams for violation of 

Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment. The Court specifically stated “[t]he stay of 

proceedings in this case against Defendant Crotty pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), imposed on June 23, 

2011, remains in place[.]” (ECF No. 141, Order at 3:14-15.) Furthermore, there is no merit to 

Plaintiff’s claim that the automatic stay of the proceedings applies with equal force to all other 

Defendants in this action, and Defendants are entitled to proceed to trial on the claims. See, e.g., In re 

Miller, 262 B.R. 499, 503, n.6 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Seiko v. Epson Corp. v. Nu-Kote International, 

Inc., 190 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“It is clearly established that the automatic stay does not 

apply to non-bankrupt co-defendants of a debtor ‘even if they are in a similar legal or factual nexus 

with the debtor.’”); Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n v. Butler, 803 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1986) (“It is 

well-established that stays pursuant to § 362(a) are limited to debtors and do not encompass nonCase 1:05-cv-01625-SAB Document 151 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

bankrupt co-defendants.”); Marcus, Stowell & Beye Government Securities, Inc. v. Jefferson 

Investment Corp., 797 F.2d 227, 230 n. 4 (5th Cir. 1986) (“The well-established rule is that an 

automatic stay of judicial proceedings against one defendant does not apply to proceedings against 

co-defendants.”). 

Having reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration, Plaintiff provides no 

grounds for reconsideration beyond asserting that the Court erred. For the reasons explained above, 

reconsideration is not warranted, and Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01625-SAB Document 151 Filed 03/03/15 Page 3 of 3