Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00056/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00056-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

RICK HAZELTINE,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

FRANCES HICKS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 50.)

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Rick Hazeltine (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 29, 2016, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of 

subpoenas duces tecum. (ECF No. 48.) On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

reconsideration of the order. (ECF No. 49.) On August 26, 2016, the Court issued an order 

denying the motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 50.)

On September 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the order denying the motion for 

reconsideration. (ECF No. 52.) The Court construes the objections as a motion for 

reconsideration of the court’s order denying Plaintiff’s prior motion for reconsideration. 

Case 1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA Document 54 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 3
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

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with 

reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 

Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or 

misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies 

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 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 Cir. 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 has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature in his 

motion for reconsideration to induce the Court to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, the 

motion for reconsideration shall be denied. Moreover, no further objections or motions for 

Case 1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA Document 54 Filed 09/27/16 Page 2 of 3
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

reconsideration concerning Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of subpoenas duces tecum (ECF No. 

47) shall be considered by the Court.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on September 9, 2016, is DENIED; 

and

2. No further objections or motions for reconsideration concerning Plaintiff’s 

motion for issuance of subpoenas duces tecum (ECF No. 47) shall be considered 

by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2016 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA Document 54 Filed 09/27/16 Page 3 of 3