Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615-31/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

JAQUES FEARENCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. HOPKINS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:08-cv-00615-SAB-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF NO. 112)

Plaintiff Fearence is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff‟s motion for 

reconsideration of the October 18, 2013, order denying Plaintiff‟s motion of the appointment of 

counsel. (ECF No. 62.)

Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 

finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 

2003). A reconsideration motion “should not be granted absent highly unusual circumstances.‟” 

McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1059 

(1989). A reconsideration motion “is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case 

under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a „second bit at the 

apple.‟” See Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2nd Cir. 1998). “A party seeking 

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 113 Filed 12/11/15 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

2

reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court‟s decision, and 

recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original 

decision fails to carry the moving party‟s burden.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist. , 134 

F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001)(internal citations omitted). “To succeed, a party must set 

forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior 

decisions.” Id.

Reconsideration is appropriate if the court: (1) is presented with newly discovered 

evidence: (2) has committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) is 

presented with an intervening change in controlling law. School District 1J. Multnomah County 

v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994). In 

addition, there may be other highly unusual circumstances warranting reconsideration. Id. 

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 quotation marks 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 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 controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 

v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009)(internal quotation 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, 

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 113 Filed 12/11/15 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

3

634 F.Supp. 646, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other grounds, 

828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1), „[a] motion under Rule 60(b) must 

be made within a reasonable time . . . and no more than a year after the entry of judgment or the 

date of the proceeding.” Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of an order entered on October 18, 2013. 

(ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff‟s request was not made within a reasonable time, and exceeds the one 

year time frame in Rule 60.

Plaintiff‟s motion for reconsideration consists of a single paragraph, arguing that “based 

on new facts, Plaintiff hereby prays that this honorable court reconsider Plaintiff‟s motion for 

appointment of counsel dated and filed on 10/15/13 for his pre-trial and trial hearings in the 

interest of justice.” (ECF No. 112 at 1:20-23.) Plaintiff does not, however, identify any new facts 

or circumstances that warrant reconsideration of the July 25, 2013, order. Kern-Tulare Water 

Dist., 634 F.Supp. at 665. Plaintiff has not shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered with 

reasonable diligence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) a 

void judgment; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; or (6) any other 

reason justifying relief, as required by Rule 60. The gravamen of Plaintiff‟s motion is that now 

that his case is scheduled for trial, reconsideration of the denial of counsel is appropriate. That 

this case is now scheduled for trial does not constitute new facts or circumstances within the 

meaning of Rule 60. For the reasons stated above, this is insufficient to warrant reconsideration 

of the order denying Plaintiff‟s motion for the appointment of counsel.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff‟s motion for reconsideration of 

the October 18, 2013, order denying Plaintiff‟s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 113 Filed 12/11/15 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

4

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 113 Filed 12/11/15 Page 4 of 4