Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00101/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00101-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLOTEAL SWOOPES,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-0101 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff filed this action on January 18, 2007, and also requested leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”). On February 2, 2007, the court dismissed the complaint pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), for failure to state a claim. The dismissal was with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 24, 2007. On May 2, 2007, the court

dismissed the case. On May 17, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion to “set aside the order of

dismissal.” 

The court interprets plaintiff’s motion as a request for amendment of the judgment,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Under Rule 60(b), amendment of the

judgment is appropriate only upon a showing of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an adverse party's fraud,

misrepresentation, or other misconduct; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied, released or

discharged judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the

judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). 

A party can obtain relief under Rule 60(b) only upon an adequate showing of

exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. See Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 254 (9th

Case 4:07-cv-00101-PJH Document 28 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Cir. 1995). A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful party

to reiterate arguments previously presented. See Maraziti, 52 F.3d at 255; Beentjes v.

Placer County Air Pollution Control District, 254 F.Supp. 2d 1159, 1161 (E.D. Cal. 2003);

Khan v. Fasano, 194 F.Supp. 2d 1134, 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (“A party cannot have relief

under this rule merely because he or she is unhappy with the judgment.”).

Here, plaintiff has not addressed any of the Rule 60(b) factors in her motion. 

Instead, she simply reiterates the allegations in the amended complaint – that her son is

being held in Doctors Medical Center “without due process of law;” that he is being treated

by Doctors Medical Center for a “non-existent condition;” that the doctors at Doctors

Medical Center have made “false diagnoses” and have forced “many different

prescriptions” on him; and that the doctors at Doctors Medical Center have barred her from

visiting her son. 

Plaintiff has not shown exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, and has not

established that the judgment should be amended. Accordingly, the court finds that

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and motion to vacate the judgment must be DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-00101-PJH Document 28 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 2