Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00156/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00156-9/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDELL EARL MARTIN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

LOADHOLT,

 Defendant.

Case No. 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 

DISCOVERY ORDER

(ECF No. 59)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against Defendant Loadholt 

on a claim of retaliation. On June, 2, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel 

further responses to requests for admissions and document production.

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s June 13, 2014 objections to the June 2nd order which 

the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration. 

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 

Case 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS Document 60 Filed 06/25/14 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

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). 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.”

Plaintiff’s objections re-argue matters previously considered by the Court in its June 

2nd order. This re-argument and the caselaw he cites in support, Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 

742, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (dealing with newly presented evidence), Brown v. U.S., 276 U.S. 

134, 143 (1928) and Consolidated Rendering Co., v. State of Vt., 207 U.S. 541, 543-544 

(1908) (dealing with specificity on document production request), and Maleng v. Cook, 490 

U.S. 488, 492 (1989) (dealing liberal construal of pro se pleadings) fail for the reasons 

discussed in the June 2nd order. Plaintiff is referred to that order for the specifics on why 

the Court found his motion deficient. 

Plaintiff also argues that the Court should have reached the merits of his motion 

even though he did not reply to Defendant’s opposition. The Court did rule on the merits. 

Plaintiff was not required to file a reply to the opposition and his failure to do so was noted 

only to indicate the procedural status of the motion. 

In summary, Plaintiff’s arguments do not demonstrate any error of fact or law in the

June 2nd order. 

If Plaintiff believes he needs and is entitled to additional discovery he may motion 

the Court to reopen discovery and modify scheduled deadlines. Any such motion should 

specifically explain what is needed, why it is relevant to this action and reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and why discovery was not 

completed prior to the deadline. 

Case 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS Document 60 Filed 06/25/14 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

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s objections to the Court’s June 2, 2014 

order construed as a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 59) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS Document 60 Filed 06/25/14 Page 3 of 3