Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01683/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01683-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE MILES, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. COX, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01683-SKO (PC)

Appeal No. 15-15960

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION, WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. 14)

I. Background

Plaintiff Maurice Miles, Sr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 28, 2014. On April 22, 2015, the

case was dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 1983. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A. On May 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration by a district judge pursuant 

to Local Rule 303(c).

Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on November 10, 2014, and he lacks 

any entitlement to seek reconsideration by a district judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636; Local Rule Appendix 

A(k)(4); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118-20 (9th Cir. 2012). (Doc. 5.) Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration shall be considered by the undersigned.

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01683-JLT-SKO Document 22 Filed 05/14/15 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

II. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order 

for any reason that justifies relief.1 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) (quotations marks and citation omitted). The 

moving party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control. Id. (quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff 

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,” and “why 

the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” 

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 

unless the district 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) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

III. Discussion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion sets forth no grounds entitling him to relief from the dismissal of this 

action. First, the dismissal order was four pages long and in several instances, Plaintiff refers to 

rulings by United States Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on pages five and six. (Doc. 14, 

Motion, 3:15-16 & 5:14-20.) As such, it appears Plaintiff is addressing an order that was issued in 

a different case, although the Court was unable to locate a case filed by Plaintiff that was assigned 

to Judge Beck.2

 

1

Plaintiff’s motion is considered pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) in the absence of any other basis for reconsideration.

2

Pursuant to CM/ECF, the Eastern District of California’s electronic case management and filing system, Plaintiff 

filed this civil rights action and a habeas petition, both of which were assigned to the undersigned.

Case 1:14-cv-01683-JLT-SKO Document 22 Filed 05/14/15 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

Next, to the extent Plaintiff’s arguments regarding jurisdiction are construed as an 

objection to the Court’s finding that it has no jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law defamation 

claim, Plaintiff’s argument has no merit. The “plain language” of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) “makes 

clear that supplemental jurisdiction may only be invoked when the district court has the hook of 

original jurisdiction on which to hang it.” Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 

F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 2001). In this case, the Court did not have original jurisdiction over any 

claims and therefore, no basis existed to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 

defamation claim. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1367(a).

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is HEREBY 

DENIED, with prejudice. Plaintiff’s notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit was filed on May 12, 2015, and it has been processed. Any further recourse 

regarding the dismissal of this action must be sought at the appellate court. The Clerk of the Court 

is DIRECTED to serve a courtesy copy of this order on the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01683-JLT-SKO Document 22 Filed 05/14/15 Page 3 of 3