Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01758/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01758-4/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

LEE EDWARD PEYTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAT L. VASQUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01758-OWW-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND REQUIRING

PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S

ORDER OF FEBRUARY 15, 2007, WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 17) 

Plaintiff Lee Edward Peyton (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 15, 2007, United States District Judge

Lawrence J. O’Neill issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion for immediate assistance and to hold

Warden Felker in contempt. (Doc. 13.) On March 5, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion seeking

reconsideration. (Doc. 17.)

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

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

Motionsto 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 (9th Cir. 1983)

(en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce

Case 1:06-cv-01758-OWW -GSA Document 18 Filed 03/14/07 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

27

28

2

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 (9th

Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015, 108 S.Ct. 1752, 100 L.Ed.2d 214 (1988). The Ninth Circuit

has stated 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 (9th Cir. 1986)

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

reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id. When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local

Rule 78-230(k) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist

which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the

motion.”

Plaintiff has set forth no grounds entitling him to reconsideration of Judge O’Neill’s order.

Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s decision does not entitle him to reconsideration, and

plaintiff’s position that the Court has jurisdiction over Warden Felker is incorrect. City of Los

Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v.

Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58

(1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is HEREBY DENIED, with prejudice, and plaintiff

SHALL comply with the Court’s order of February 15, 2007, within thirty (30) days from the date

of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01758-OWW -GSA Document 18 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 2