Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00706/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00706-8/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

Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in a civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions 

Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). 

On April 2, 2015, the Court vacated the pending order to show cause and granted Plaintiff 

thirty days to file an amended complaint. 

On April 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the April 2, 2015, order which the Court 

construes as a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 23.)

Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 

711 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 

1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to 

induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

K. TRUMBLY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00706-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION AND DIRECTING CLERK 

OF COURT TO SEND PLAINTIFF A COURTESY 

COPY OF ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND COURT 

ORDER ISSUED AUGUST 1, 2014

[ECF No. 23]

Case 1:14-cv-00706-DAD-SAB Document 24 Filed 04/16/15 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

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 

(9th Cir. 1987). 

Rule 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 quotation marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must 

demonstrate boy injury and circumstances beyond his control ....” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) 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 ground exist for the motion.” 

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any basis to reconsider the Court’s April 2, 2015, order. 

Plaintiff’s claim that he was recently transferred from Coalinga State Hospital to the Fresno County 

jail while unfortunate is not a basis to reconsider the Court’s April 2, 2015, order. Plaintiff is 

apparently without his legal property due his recent transfer and requests that the Court provide him 

with a copy of his original complaint. In light of the fact that Plaintiff was recently transferred from 

Coalinga State Hospital to the Fresno County jail and is without his legal property and Plaintiff’s 

original complaint is not voluminous, the Court will make a one-time exception and provide Plaintiff 

with a free copy of his original complaint. However, Plaintiff is advised and cautioned that he is 

responsible for retaining any and all documentation related to this case. The Clerk of Court does not 

ordinarily provide free copies of case documents to parties. The Clerk charges $.50 per page for 

copies of documents. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Copies of up to twenty pages may be made by the 

Clerk’s Office at this Court upon written request and prepayment of the copy fees. The fact that the 

Court has granted leave for Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis does not entitle him to free copies of 

documents from the Court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2250, the Clerk is not required to furnish copies 

without cost to an indigent plaintiff except by order of the court. 

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00706-DAD-SAB Document 24 Filed 04/16/15 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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s April 2, 2015, order is DENIED; 

and

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the original complaint, filed 

May 12, 2014 (ECF No. 1) and copy of the Court’s August 1, 2014, screening order 

(ECF No. 9). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00706-DAD-SAB Document 24 Filed 04/16/15 Page 3 of 3