Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00281/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00281-4/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

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

DENO WOODIS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

A. KING, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00281-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 16.)

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Deno Woodis (APlaintiff@) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action 

on February 19, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) The court screened the Complaint and issued findings and 

recommendations on June 25, 2014, to dismiss this case for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 

12.) Plaintiff did not file objections to the findings and recommendations.1 On September 4, 

2014, the undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations and dismissed this case. 

(ECF No. 14.) 

On July 31, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the 

case. (ECF No. 16.)

 

1 On July 7, 2014, the findings and recommendations were returned to the court by the U.S. Postal service 

as undeliverable. Plaintiff did not notify the court of his new address until he filed the instant motion for 

reconsideration on July 31, 2015. Absent notice of a new address for Plaintiff, service at Plaintiff’s prior address 

was fully effective. Local Rule 182(f). 

Case 1:14-cv-00281-AWI-GSA Document 18 Filed 08/18/15 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. 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). “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.

Case 1:14-cv-00281-AWI-GSA Document 18 Filed 08/18/15 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

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration, filed on July 31, 2015, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00281-AWI-GSA Document 18 Filed 08/18/15 Page 3 of 3