Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02694/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02694-2/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SEAVON PIERCE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO NEWS AND REVIEW, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-2694 JAM KJN P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 11, 2016, this action was dismissed without prejudice to 

plaintiff re-filing his action upon pre-payment of the $400.00 filing fee. Court records reflect that 

on at least three prior occasions, plaintiff has brought actions while incarcerated that were 

dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

(ECF No. 12 at 2) (collecting cases). On August 29, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for 

reconsideration. On September 20, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for consolidation of certain 

cases filed in this district. 

 Relief under Rule 60 “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) 

Case 2:15-cv-02694-JAM-KJN Document 21 Filed 11/30/16 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

(addressing reconsideration under Rules 60(b)(1)-(5)). The moving party “must demonstrate both 

injury and circumstances beyond his control. . . .” Id. (internal 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” 

previously, “what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were 

not shown” at the time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered. 

 “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,” and it “may not be used to 

raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 

raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 

F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in 

original). 

 Here, plaintiff has not shown any new or different facts or circumstances, newly 

discovered evidence, or an intervening change of law to support his motion for reconsideration. 

Instead, he merely repeats his arguments concerning the alleged merits of his underlying claims. 

The undersigned found the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to be supported by 

the record and by proper analysis, and adopted them in full. Plaintiff must pay the filing fee to 

proceed with his claims. 

 Similarly, the court finds no good cause to consolidate plaintiff’s actions filed in this 

district because the cases listed by plaintiff have all been terminated. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 18) is denied; and 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for consolidation (ECF No. 19) is denied. 

DATED: November 30, 2016 

 /s/ John A. Mendez_______________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-02694-JAM-KJN Document 21 Filed 11/30/16 Page 2 of 2