Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01396/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01396-2/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

GABRIEL CANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01396-JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO 

ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT

(Doc. 12) 

Plaintiff, Gabriel Cano, is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action 

on September 8, 2014. (Doc. 1.) It was screened and dismissed with leave to amend. (Docs. 9, 

10.) On October 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7), upon which 

Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the action issued (Doc. 8). Despite Plaintiff's objects 

(Doc. 9) the Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full (Doc. 10) on January 26, 2015 

and judgment was entered that same day (Doc. 11). On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion 

to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule159(e). (Doc. 12.) 

Rule 59(e) provides that a motion to alter or amend a judgment just be filed no later than 

28 days after the entry of the judgment. Plaintiff's motion is timely under this Rule. However, 

 

1

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will hereinafter be referred to as ARule *.@ Any reference to other statutory 

authorities shall so indicate.

Case 1:14-cv-01396-LJO-JLT Document 13 Filed 04/21/15 Page 1 of 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

2

Rule 59(e) provides a means to correct an error contained in a judgment post-trial, which did not 

occur in this action.

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that he should be given another 

opportunity to amend his pleading, or alternatively, that he has stated cognizable claims such that 

the First Amended Complaint he filed in this action should be deemed to have passed screening 

and be served on the Defendants. (Doc. 12, p. 2.) Thus, Plaintiff's motion is properly construed 

as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60 for relief from a judgment or order.

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). The moving party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances 

beyond his control. Id. Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff 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," and "why the facts or 

circumstances were not shown at the time" the objectionable order issued. 

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, and it may not be used to raise arguments or 

present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 

litigation. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th 

Cir. 2009). 

Plaintiff has shown neither any newly discovered evidence, nor that the Court erred in its 

application of the law to Plaintiff's factual allegations. Plaintiff's disagreement with the Court=s 

determination provides no basis for vacating the judgment entered in this case.

The Court carefully reviewed Plaintiff=s First Amended Complaint and detailed the 

reasons Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims. Plaintiff=s motion fails to set forth any 

grounds entitling him to reconsideration of the order dismissing this action.

/ / /

Case 1:14-cv-01396-LJO-JLT Document 13 Filed 04/21/15 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion, filed February 4, 2015 

(Doc. 12), is DENIED, with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01396-LJO-JLT Document 13 Filed 04/21/15 Page 3 of 3