Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06764/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06764-12/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUCHELL MAGEE,

Plaintiff, CV F 03 6764 LJO AWI WMW PC 

vs. ORDER RE MOTION (DOC 62)

D. BRAVO, et al.,

Defendants.

On June 19, 2007, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending dismissal

of this action for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff

did not file objections, and on July 23, 2007, the findings and recommendations were adopted,

and this action was dismissed.

On July 30, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion titled as a motion to vacate the order adopting

the findings and recommendations. Because Plaintiff is seeking a reconsideration of the order

dismissing this action, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for reconsideration

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

district court. The rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment

on the grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an

Case 1:03-cv-06764-LJO-WMW Document 69 Filed 03/27/08 Page 1 of 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

2

adverse party, . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, in

any event, “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or

taken.” Id.

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v.

Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460

(9 Cir. 1983)(en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing th

nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City

of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other

grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9 Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988). The Ninth Circuit has th

held that “[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding

clauses.’” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9 Cir. th

1986), quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9 Cir. 1981). Accordingly, “the th

clause is reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id.

In the present case, the court finds that the above standard has not been met.

Plaintiff’s motion consists of rambling argument related to Plaintiff’s underlying criminal

conviction, as well as disagreements with previous rulings in this case. Plaintiff has not,

however, meet the above standard.

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order

adopting the findings and recommendations is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06764-LJO-WMW Document 69 Filed 03/27/08 Page 2 of 2