Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01444/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01444-5/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

MICHAEL A. SPARKMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01444-AWI-MJS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BE 

DENIED

(ECF NO. 21)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) 

DAYS

Plaintiff Michael A. Sparkman, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 4, 

2012. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s complaint and first two amended complaints were each 

dismissed for failure to state a claim. (ECF Nos. 5, 9, and 16.) On March 29, 2013, the 

Court issued findings and recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s Third 

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 17) be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a 

claim. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff filed no objections and the order closing this action was 

adopted on May 13, 2013. (ECF Nos. 19 and 20.)

On June 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the dismissal. 

(ECF No. 21.)

Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that 

Case 1:12-cv-01444-AWI-MJS Document 23 Filed 07/29/14 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

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 demonstrate both injury and circumstances 

beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking 

reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) 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 . . . 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).

Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider dismissal of his claims because severe

mental illness left him debilitated and unable to litigate his case properly. Plaintiff 

suggests that his claim was dismissed for failure to prosecute, apparently in response to 

a motion to dismiss filed by the Defendants. 

Plaintiff’s case was dismissed at the screening stage more than a year ago for 

failure to state a claim. No Defendant ever appeared. No motion to dismiss was filed.

The Court screened and dismissed, with leave to amend, several pleadings

before recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice. Despite his illness, 

Plaintiff was able to file, within specified time frames, several successive complaints 

which were coherent and warranted the Court’s evaluation to see if any included facts 

necessary to state a claim. They did not. The Court’s Orders outlined what needed to 

be added to them state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff responded to the Orders 

Case 1:12-cv-01444-AWI-MJS Document 23 Filed 07/29/14 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

intelligently, but did not include the facts needed to state a cause of action; presumably 

they did not exist. Accordingly, the case was dismissed.

In any event, Plaintiff’s has not shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for 

relief. He has not met the burden imposed on a party moving for reconsideration. 

Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Reconsideration (ECF No. 21) be denied, with prejudice.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States 

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and 

Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document 

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01444-AWI-MJS Document 23 Filed 07/29/14 Page 3 of 3