Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02610/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02610-1/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES E. MOSES, JR.,

CDCR #K-65174,

Civil No. 13cv2610 LAB (MDD)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[ECF No. 8]

vs.

CYNTHIA WHITE,

Defendant.

Procedural History I.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to

the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 12, 2013, this Court dismissed this action

as duplicative pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis as moot. (ECF No. 4.) Specifically, the Court found the claims in this action

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv2610-Deny 60(b).wpd, 122013 1 13cv2610 LAB (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-02610-LAB-MDD Document 13 Filed 12/20/13 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

to be identical to the claims Plaintiff filed in Moses v. White, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No.

12cv0073 JLS (BGS). (Id. at 2.) The Court dismissed the action and closed the file. 1

On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration in this matter. 

(ECF No. 8.)

II. Plaintiff’s Motion

A. Motion for Reconsideration

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for

reconsideration. However, a motion for reconsideration may be construed as a motion to alter 2

or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489

U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir.

1994). Reconsideration under Rule 60 may be granted in the case of: (1) mistake, inadvertence,

surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) fraud; or if (4) the judgment

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

FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b).

B. Plaintiff’s claims

In Plaintiff’s Motion, he argues that this Court should never have dismissed this action

as duplicative because the basis for the dismissal in Moses v. White, et. al., S.D. Cal Civil Case 

No. 12cv0073 JLS (BGS) was erroneous. (See Pl.’s Mot. at 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues

that his previous action was dismissed because the Court found that Defendant White was

erroneously entitled to judicial immunity. (Id.) However, the Court has reviewed the docket

in the matter the Court found to be duplicative and finds that the action was, in fact, dismissed

The Court also takes judicial notice that Plaintiff filed this identical action which contained the 1

same claims in Moses v. Superior Court of San Diego, Court Stenographer, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No.

12cv0937 AJB (JMA). District Judge AnthonyBattaglia also dismissed that case as frivolous pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). (Id., ECF No. 4, at 1-3.)

However, Local Rule 7.1(i) does permit motions for reconsideration. Under Local Rule 7.1(i)(1),

2

a party may apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any

order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part....” S.D. CAL.

CIVLR 7.1(i). The party seeking reconsideration must show “what new or different facts and

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.” 

Id. Local Rule 7.1(i)(2), however, only permits motions for reconsideration within “twenty -eight (28)

days after the entry of the ruling, order or judgment sought to be reconsidered.”

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv2610-Deny 60(b).wpd, 122013 2 13cv2610 LAB (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-02610-LAB-MDD Document 13 Filed 12/20/13 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

as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). (See Moses v. White, et. al., S.D.

Cal Civil Case No. 12cv0073 JLS (BGS), ECF No. 5 at 2-3.) Thus, Defendant White was not

found to have judicial immunity and moreover, Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended

Complaint which he failed to do. As the Court stated in the Order challenged by Plaintiff, a

prisoner’s complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if it “merely repeats

pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir.

1995). This is the third identical action Plaintiff has filed involving the same claims and the

same parties. A motion for reconsideration cannot be granted merely because Plaintiff is

unhappy with the judgment, frustrated by the Court’s application of the facts to binding

precedent or because he disagrees with the ultimate decision. See 11 Charles Alan Wright &

Arthur R. Miller Federal Practice & Procedure 2d § 2858 (Supp. 2007) (citing Edwards v.

Velvac, Inc., 19 F.R.D. 504, 507 (D. Wis. 1956)). Plaintiff has failed to provide any factual or

evidentiary support for any basis under Rule 60(b) that would justify vacating the Court’s

November 12, 2013 Order.

III. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion brought pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 60 [ECF No. 8] is

hereby DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 19, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv2610-Deny 60(b).wpd, 122013 3 13cv2610 LAB (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-02610-LAB-MDD Document 13 Filed 12/20/13 Page 3 of 3