Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01059/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01059-1/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

JOSH THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. OGBEHI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01059-LJO-DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Document 6)

Plaintiff Josh Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on July 10, 2015. On July 14, 2015, 

the Court dismissed the action without prejudice to refiling accompanied by the filing fee. 

On August 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed an “objection” to the dismissal. The Court construes this 

as a motion for reconsideration.

A. 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. 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 

Case 1:15-cv-01059-LJO-BAM Document 7 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 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

2

“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.” 

B. DISCUSSION

The Court found that Plaintiff was subject to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), which provides that “[i]n no 

event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior 

occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the 

United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury.”

The Court further found that Plaintiff failed to provide facts showing that he was under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the complaint was filed. Plaintiff’s 

allegations were vague, and he provided no specific information to support his claim that Defendants 

refused to provide medically necessary appliances. ECF No. 4, at 2. 

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff provides more information. However, the Court’s 

determination was made based on Plaintiff’s complaint at the time of filing. Based on his complaint, 

Plaintiff did not meet the exception. He cannot now use reconsideration to essentially amend his 

pleading. 

This Court’s dismissal was without prejudice, which means that Plaintiff can file a new case 

with a more detailed complaint. His motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01059-LJO-BAM Document 7 Filed 08/31/15 Page 2 of 2