Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01516/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01516-16/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

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

ANTOINE BEALER,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

R. BRANNUM, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-01516-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER OF APRIL 23, 2015, WITH 

PREJUDICE

(Doc. 66.)

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Antoine Bealer ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 14, 2012, Plaintiff 

filed the Complaint commencing this action. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds with the Fourth 

Amended Complaint filed on March 28, 2014, against defendants Rios and Brannum for use of 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 21.) 

On March 2, 2015, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing 

pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a deadline of November 2, 2015, to complete 

discovery, and a deadline of January 11, 2016, to file dispositive motions. (Doc. 45.) This case 

is now in the discovery phase.

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 69 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 3
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

On June 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the court’s order issued on April 23, 

2015, which denied Plaintiff’s request for legal recognition. (Doc. 63.) The court construes 

Plaintiff’s objections as a second motion for reconsideration of the court’s order of April 23, 

2015.

1

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with 

reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 

Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or 

misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies 

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 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(k) 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 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 

 

1 On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for legal recognition, in which he requested

privileges at the prison based on the fact that he represents himself in this case. (Doc. 49.) On April 23, 2015, the 

court denied Plaintiff’s request based on the court’s lack of jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff. 

(Doc. 50.) On June 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order of April 23, 2015. 

(ECF No. 63.) The motion for reconsideration was denied on June 2, 2015. (ECF No. 64.)

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 69 Filed 06/22/15 Page 2 of 3
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

considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 

F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 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 Kern-Tulare 

Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and 

reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

Here, Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature in his 

motion for reconsideration to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, the 

motion for reconsideration shall be denied, with prejudice.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on June 19, 2015, is DENIED, with 

prejudice; and

2. The court shall not consider any further objections of, or motions for 

reconsideration of, the court’s order of April 23, 2015 which denied Plaintiff’s request for legal 

recognition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 69 Filed 06/22/15 Page 3 of 3