Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01511/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01511-5/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

ZANE HUBBARD ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORCORAN STATE PRISON, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01511-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

(ECF No. 17)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action, now closed, proceeded

against Defendants Lindsey, Nickell, Stanley, and Doe on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

conditions of confinement claim. 

On March 23, 2014, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued findings 

and a recommendation to dismiss the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 

(ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff filed no objections. On April 24, 2015, the undersigned adopted 

the findings and recommendation (ECF No. 15), judgment was entered thereon (ECF 

No. 16), and the action was closed. 

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s May 18, 2015 objections to the findings and 

Case 1:13-cv-01511-AWI-MJS Document 18 Filed 08/11/15 Page 1 of 5
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

recommendation. (ECF No. 17.) The objections are untimely. The Court construes them 

as a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 17.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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).

“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 motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence 

for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised in earlier litigation.” Id. 

Moreover, “recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before 

rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.” U.S. v. Westlands 

Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony 

Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 834, 856-57 (D.N.J. 1992)). Similarly, Local Rule 230(j) 

requires that a party seeking reconsideration show that “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 . . . .”

III. DISCUSSION

A. Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff first objects on the ground that the Magistrate Judge failed to appoint him 

counsel. However, Plaintiff did not previously request counsel. Moreover, Plaintiff has no 

constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action. Plaintiff also did not, and indeed 

does not now, present exceptional circumstances that would prompt the Court to seek 

Case 1:13-cv-01511-AWI-MJS Document 18 Filed 08/11/15 Page 2 of 5
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

volunteer counsel on his behalf. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 

1997).

B. Bias on the Part of the Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff next objects vaguely that the Magistrate Judge’s “mindframe” deprived 

him of a hearing on his claims and subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment.

“Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely 

and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal 

bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall 

proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such 

proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 144; see Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 

2008). Section 144 expressly conditions relief upon the filing of a timely and legally 

sufficient affidavit. United States v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 1978). 

A judge must disqualify himself if “his impartiality might be reasonably 

questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or if “he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a 

party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” 

28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). However, the bias must arise “from an extrajudicial source” and 

cannot be based solely on information gained in the course of the proceedings. Pesnell, 

543 F.3d at 1043-44 (citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554-56 (1994)). 

“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality 

motion.” Id. at 1044 (quoting Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555). “In and of themselves . . . they 

cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest 

circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required . . . when no 

extrajudicial source is involved.” Focus Media, Inc. v. NBC, 378 F.3d 916, 930 (9th Cir. 

2004). Judicial bias or prejudice formed during current or prior proceedings is sufficient 

for recusal only when the judge's actions “display a deep-seated favoritism or 

antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555; Pesnell, 

543 F.3d at 1044. “‘[E]xpressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even 

Case 1:13-cv-01511-AWI-MJS Document 18 Filed 08/11/15 Page 3 of 5
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

anger’ are not grounds for establishing bias or impartiality, nor are a judge's efforts at 

courtroom administration.” Pesnell, 543 F.3d at 1044 (quoting Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555–

56).

The objective test for determining whether recusal is required is whether a 

reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s 

impartiality might reasonably be questioned. United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 

1147 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Adverse findings do not equate to bias.” 

Id. at 1148.

Here, Plaintiff presents no basis for questioning the impartiality of the Magistrate 

Judge. To the extent Plaintiff’s complaint regarding the Magistrate Judge’s “mindframe” 

is predicated upon adverse findings and recommendations, it is insufficient to show 

partiality. Pesnell, 543 F.3d at 1044 (quoting Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555). Moreover, the 

undersigned conducted a de novo review of the findings and recommendation and 

concluded they were supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the 

Magistrate Judge’s “mindframe” was not dispositive of Plaintiff’s claims.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s “mindframe” do not 

provide a basis for reconsideration.

C. No Cognizable Claims

Finally, Plaintiff appears to argue that his second amended complaint contained 

cognizable claims. However, Plaintiff essentially reiterates the points raised in his 

complaint. Restating arguments that previously have been considered and rejected by 

the Court, without more, does not provide a basis for reconsideration. Westlands Water 

Dist., 134 F. Supp. at 1131; Local Rule 230(j).

///

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01511-AWI-MJS Document 18 Filed 08/11/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 17), which the Court 

construes as a motion for reconsideration, are HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01511-AWI-MJS Document 18 Filed 08/11/15 Page 5 of 5