Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01762/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01762-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

JEREMY JONES, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

DR. CHEN, et al., 

Defendants. 

_____________________________/

CASE No. 1:11-cv-01762-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

(ECF No. 23) 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Jeremy Jones, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis filed this civil rights action on October 24, 2011 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On May 24, 2012, Plaintiff’s Complaint was screened and

dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he was given leave to amend. (Order

Dismiss. Compl., ECF No. 8.) On June, 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed his First Amended

Complaint. (First Am. Compl., ECF No. 9.) On July 27, 2012, the Court screened the

First Amended Complaint and found cognizable claims against Defendant Chen for

Eighth Amendment medical indifference and First Amendment retaliation. The Court

-1-

Case 1:11-cv-01762-MJS Document 24 Filed 02/01/13 Page 1 of 4
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

gave Plaintiff until August 30, 2012, to advise whether he wished to proceed on those

claims alone or to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the

Court in its Second Screening Order. (Order Amend or Notify, ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff

requested and the Court granted four extensions of time, through January 8, 2013, to

file an amended pleading. (Order Grant. Fourth Mot. Ext. Time, ECF No. 20.)

Plaintiff’s request for a fifth extension of time was denied by the Court on

January 14, 2013. (Order Den. Ext. Time, ECF No. 22.) All claims in Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint except for his claims against Defendant Chen for Eighth

Amendment medical indifference and First Amendment retaliation were dismissed.

(Id.) Service was ordered on Defendant Chen. (Id.) Plaintiff was provided with service

documents to complete and return to the Court by not later than February 14, 2013.

(Id.) 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s

January 14, 2013 Order on grounds he was busy with other litigation and family

matters and overlooked the Court’s extended deadline to amend his pleading. (Mot.

Recons., ECF No. 23.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order and judgment 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). The

moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . .

.” Id. In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to

identify the motion or order in issue and when it was made, and 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.”

-2-

Case 1:11-cv-01762-MJS Document 24 Filed 02/01/13 Page 2 of 4
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

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

circumstances, unless the . . . 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), and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a

disagreement with the [c]ourt's decision, and recapitulation . . .” of that which was

already considered by the court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water

Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues he overlooked the Court’s fourth and final deadline to amend

his pleading because he was preparing legal documents in a separate proceeding,

and was observing the anniversary of the death of his young son.

The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a fifth extension of time to amend his

pleading due to a lack of reasonable diligence. Plaintiff’s fifth request to extend the

original August 30, 2012 due date simply parroted his previous requests and gave no 

indication why the prior four extensions were insufficient, what efforts he had

undertaken to meet the deadline, and what more he needed or wanted in order to be

able to file his amended pleading. The Court found further delay unjustified and

prejudicial to Defendant. 

Plaintiff’s present Motion provides no basis for the Court to reconsider its

January 14, 2013 Order. Plaintiff is required to prosecute this action diligently. He has

not done so. The fact he may have filing deadlines in other litigation and must deal

with personal family issues does not justify or excuse the five month delay. Plaintiff

has been given four separate and successive extensions. He was warned the fourth

extension would be his last. 

///////

-3-

Case 1:11-cv-01762-MJS Document 24 Filed 02/01/13 Page 3 of 4
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 summary, Plaintiff has not identified new facts, or legal or factual error, or

any other reasonable grounds to justify reconsideration of the Court’s January 14,

2013 Order. His extended delays to date militate against reconsideration. His Motion

for Reconsideration shall be denied. 

IV. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration of the Court’s January 14, 2013 Order (ECF No. 23) be DENIED.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

12eob4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-4-

Case 1:11-cv-01762-MJS Document 24 Filed 02/01/13 Page 4 of 4