Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01429/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01429-9/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

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

ROBERTO HERRERA,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

GILL, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-1429-AWI-EPG-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. No. 45.)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AS MOOT

(Doc. No. 46.)

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Roberto Herrera (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 21, 2016, the Court 

issued an order that closed and dismissed this case with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 

Doc. No. 43. 

On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the 

case, and a motion for appointment of counsel. Doc. Nos. 45, 46.

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with 

reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 

Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or 

misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies 

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to 

Case 1:13-cv-01429-AWI-EPG Document 47 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 4
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

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. In seeking 

reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) 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 grounds exist for the motion.” 

“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.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 

Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). “A party seeking 

reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and 

recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the Court before rending its original 

decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” Credit Bureau Connection, Inc. v. Pardini, 

726 F.Supp.2d 1107, 1132 (E.D. Cal. 2010); Honor Plastic Co. v. Lollicup USA, Inc., 462 

F.Supp.2d 1122, 1134 (E.D. Cal. 2006). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a 

strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. Credit Bureau, 726

F.Supp.2d at 1132; Honor Plastic, 462 F.Supp.2d at 1135.

Here, Plaintiff declares that on March 28 or March 29, 2016, he prepared and mailed a 

motion for an extension of time (45 days) and a request for the Clerk to send him a copy of his 

first amended complaint, the Court’s screening order, and a blank second amended complaint 

form. Plaintiff further declares that, since he was accused of staff assault on November 16, 

2015, all of his legal documents and personal belongings were not issued to him. Plaintiff 

declares that he complained about not being issued his legal materials and belongings. Plaintiff 

declares that he was taken by a correctional officer to review the legal papers of all his active 

cases. Plaintiff declares that his legal work was “trashed,” that he briefly went through the 

papers, and then told the correctional officer to “through everything in the trash because 

document[s] are missing and all trashed out.” Plaintiff declares that the correctional officer 

refused, and instead saved Plaintiff’s papers in storage. Plaintiff declares that on March 4, 

Case 1:13-cv-01429-AWI-EPG Document 47 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 4
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

2016, he was reassigned and issued all of his belongings and documents. Plaintiff went 

through his documents and discovered that several documents to this case were missing. 

Plaintiff declares that after he went through his papers and discovered that documents relating 

to this case were missing, he prepared a motion for extension of time and for copies of 

documents 17 and 25 in the Court’s docket. 

In essence, Plaintiff is requesting reconsideration on the basis of a motion for an 

extension of time that was never received by the Court. The Court finds that Plaintiff would 

not have been given another extension of time. First, Plaintiff has received five extensions of 

time to file a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint was to be limited to 

one claim – that nurses violated the Eighth Amendment because they were deliberately 

indifferent to Plaintiff’s pain by failing to give Plaintiff pain medication. See Doc. No. 27. 

This is not a particularly complex claim. From the time that Plaintiff was granted leave to 

amend to the time that this case was finally closed, almost a full year had passed. Plaintiff had 

been given over 10 months in extensions to file an amended complaint, which is more than 

enough time to complete and file such a limited complaint. Second, Plaintiff was given the 

opportunity to review his legal documents. Plaintiff states he saw that some documents were 

missing and wanted the correctional officer to throw all papers away. Plaintiff does not explain 

what efforts he made to see what papers from this case were missing at that time, or what 

efforts he made to obtain documents relative to this case. In other words, when given the 

opportunity to examine and possibly retrieve some legal documents in this case, Plaintiff did 

not do so. Third, Plaintiff does not describe what efforts he had made prior to March 29, 2016, 

in which to file a second amended complaint in this case. Fourth, Plaintiff does not expressly 

identify which papers from this case were missing from his legal documents. Plaintiff does say 

that he requested the Clerk to send him Documents 17 (Plaintiff’s first amended complaint) and 

25 (findings and recommendation to dismiss first amended complaint with prejudice) from the 

Court’s docket. The Court will assume that these two documents were missing. However, this 

means that Plaintiff was still in possession of his original compliant, the screening order for that 

complaint which listed the legal standard for an Eighth Amendment claim (Doc. No. 11), his 

Case 1:13-cv-01429-AWI-EPG Document 47 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

objections to the last findings and recommendation (Doc. No. 26), and the order that adopted in 

part the last findings and recommendation and gave Plaintiff permission to file a limited second 

amended complaint (Doc. No. 27). Given the documents in Plaintiff’s possession, it is unclear 

how the absence of Documents 17 and 25 would have prevented Plaintiff from filing a limited

seconded amended complaint. 

For these reasons, the Plaintiff’s extension of time would not have been granted and 

would not have prevented dismissal and closure of this case. Because Plaintiff has not set forth 

facts or law of a strongly convincing nature in his motion for reconsideration to induce the 

Court to reverse its prior decision, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.

III. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff seeks court-appointed counsel to represent him in this case. In light of the 

ruling herein denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, and the fact that this case was 

dismissed and closed on April 21, 2016, Plaintiff’s motion for counsel is moot.

IV. ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 45) and motion for appointment of 

counsel (Doc. No. 46) are both DENIED; and

2. This case remains CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01429-AWI-EPG Document 47 Filed 05/06/16 Page 4 of 4