Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00473/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00473-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

EDWARD DAVID JONES, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ERIC ARNOLD, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00473-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

(ECF No. 5)

Plaintiff Edward David Jones, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 

initiated this civil action on April 1, 2016. On August 4, 2016, the Court dismissed this action as 

duplicative of case number 1:16-cv-00469-DAD-BAM. Doc. 3. Judgment was entered 

accordingly that same day. Doc. 4.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for acknowledgements. Doc. 5. In the 

motion, Plaintiff discusses his allegations and the procedural history of both this action and the

1:16-cv-00469-DAD-BAM action. He specifically states that he filed an amended complaint in 

Case No. 1:16-cv-00489-DAD-BAM, and tried his best to overcome any deficiencies of his 

complaint in that action. Id. at 3. Plaintiff’s motion is difficult to understand, but it appears he is 

concerned about the dismissal of this action, and would like the dismissal to be reconsidered. It 

also appears he is concerned that the judgment in this action affects Case No. 1:16-cv-00469-

DAD-BAM. The Court construes this motion as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(6).

Case 1:16-cv-00473-LJO-BAM Document 6 Filed 08/18/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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) (quoting Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & 

Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury 

and circumstances beyond his control.” Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103. In seeking reconsideration of 

an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party 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.” L.R. 230(j). “A motion for reconsideration 

should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the ... 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).

Plaintiff has presented no grounds for reconsideration of the dismissal of this action. As a 

result, his motion will be denied. To Plaintiff’s concerns regarding Case No. 1:16-cv-00489-

DAD-BAM, Plaintiff is informed that this action and that action are separate, and the judgment 

in this matter does not affect the pendency of the other case. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for acknowledgements, 

seeking reconsideration of the dismissal of this action, (Doc. 5), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00473-LJO-BAM Document 6 Filed 08/18/16 Page 2 of 2