Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01339/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01339-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY HANNA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RON DAVIS, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01339 DLB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Document 16)

Plaintiff Timothy Hanna (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action 

on August 28, 2014. On September 10, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and 

dismissed it with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s November 20, 2014, First Amended Complaint is 

awaiting screening.

On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to grant inmate Thomas Bodnar “next 

friend” standing. Plaintiff stated that he is indigent and untrained in the law, and requested that 

Inmate Bodnar be given standing to “proceed on separately filed and related documents...” ECF 

No. 11, at 2. 

The Court denied the motion on October 15, 2014. 

On December 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed an “opposition” to the Court’s denial. He requests 

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order by the District Court. However, Plaintiff 

consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on September 5, 2014, and 

District Court review is therefore not available. Local Rule 305(c).

Case 1:14-cv-01339-DLB Document 17 Filed 12/09/14 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

The Court will review Plaintiff’s request under Rule 60(b).

Rule 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) (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 Ci r.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 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 argues that this Court should have granted his request to permit inmate 

Bodnar to prosecute this action on his behalf. Plaintiff cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

17(c), which governs representation of an incompetent person or minor. As the Court previously 

held, there is no indication that Plaintiff is incompetent. 

Plaintiff now explains that his crime puts his life in danger, and he cannot talk to anyone 

about his legal situation. Plaintiff has received help from Inmate Bodnar and contends that “next 

friend” status is now necessary because Plaintiff has been transferred to a different institution. 

Case 1:14-cv-01339-DLB Document 17 Filed 12/09/14 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

Plaintiff suggests that if he has to seek the help of another inmate, his life may be placed in 

danger.

While the Court recognizes Plaintiff’s concerns, they are not grounds to appoint someone 

else to proceed on his behalf. Again, the purpose of Rule 17(c) is to protect an incompetent

person’s interests in prosecuting or defending a lawsuit. See Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 

1310 (9th Cir. 2014). 

The Court also notes that “next friend” status, as characterized by Plaintiff, is generally a 

tool used in petitions for writs of habeas corpus. In any event, “next friend” status also requires an 

“adequate explanation- such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability- why the 

real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action” Whitmore v. 

Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-164 (1990). That Plaintiff may have a more difficult time 

prosecuting this action after his transfer is not grounds for “next friend” status.

Plaintiff’s motion is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01339-DLB Document 17 Filed 12/09/14 Page 3 of 3