Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01480/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01480-9/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALPHEOUS GORDON, aka

ORVILLE OWEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:07-cv-01480-OWW-YNP-SMS-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 37)

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

302. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the September 23,

2009, order adopting the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and dismissing

this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

 Plaintiff is housed at the U.S. Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado. Plaintiff filed this

action on October 12, 2007, claiming that correctional officials at the Fresno County Jail

infringed on Plaintiff’s right to the free exercise of his religious belief. Specifically, Plaintiff

alleged that while he was housed at the Fresno County Jail, he was authorized to receive a kosher

diet. Plaintiff’s sole allegation was that a tea bag was mixed with his kool-aid, thus rendering the

kool-aid non kosher. Plaintiff alleged no specific conduct by any particular defendant. Plaintiff

failed to allege any facts indicating that any defendant forced Plaintiff to drink anything he did

Case 1:07-cv-01480-OWW -MJS Document 39 Filed 06/29/10 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

not desire. On June 12, 2008, an order was entered, dismissing the complaint and granting

Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint. Plaintiff was advised of the deficiencies in the

complaint, and the legal standards required to state a claim for relief. 

On September 12, 2008, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. In a finding and

recommendation entered on May 19, 2009, the Magistrate Judge found that the first amended

complaint failed to cure the deficiencies identified in the order dismissing the original complaint. 

 Plaintiff restated the allegations of the original complaint. Plaintiff appeared to complain that

the tea bag was removed and replaced, in violation of a court order. In the finding and 1

recommendation, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff did not cure the defects identified in

the earlier order. Plaintiff failed to allege any facts indicating that any individual defendant

engaged in any conduct. Plaintiff simply directed the Court to the exhibits attached to his

complaint. The Magistrate Judge therefore recommended dismissal of this action for failure to

state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th

Cir. 1987)(prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to

dismissing for failure to state a claim). On June 16 and June 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed objections

to the findings and recommendations. On September 23, 2009, this Court adopted the findings

and recommendations, taking into consideration both objections.

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick

Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9 Cir. th

1983)(en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other

grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9 Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988). The Ninth Circuit has th

held that “[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding

 Plaintiff attached a copy of an order entered in this court, while Plaintiff was a criminal 1

defendant. The order directed officials at the Fresno County Jail to provide a kosher diet to

Plaintiff. 

2

Case 1:07-cv-01480-OWW -MJS Document 39 Filed 06/29/10 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

clauses.’” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9 Cir. th

1986), quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9 Cir. 1981). Accordingly, “the th

clause is reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration consists of a single paragraph, and sets forth no

legal argument. Plaintiff simply asks for reconsideration. Plaintiff has cited no new facts, new

law, mistake, fraud, or other extraordinary circumstances that would entitle Plaintiff to

reconsideration. See Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 60(b); Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 72(a); Local Rule 230(j). As such,

Plaintiff is not entitled to reconsideration. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of

the September 23, 2009, order dismissing this action is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:07-cv-01480-OWW -MJS Document 39 Filed 06/29/10 Page 3 of 3