Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00573/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00573-17/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL J. BRODHEIM,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-0573 FCD EFB P

vs.

MICHAEL CRY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On October 4 and 22, 2007, plaintiff filed motions asking the court to reconsider its

September 25, 2007, order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff claims

that because the court previously found that he had stated a claim against defendants in its

findings and recommendations filed August 5, 2005, that the court’s findings and

recommendations of September 25, 2007, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment

constitutes an abuse of discretion. Plaintiff fails to recognize that the court’s findings and

recommendations of August 5, 2005, found that plaintiff had stated a claim such that would

overcome a motion to dismiss, and directed defendants to answer the complaint. Defendants did

so with a motion for summary judgment, on which they prevailed. The court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of defendants is not an abuse of discretion. 

/////

Case 2:02-cv-00573-FCD-KJN Document 198 Filed 11/07/07 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

2

Therefore, plaintiff’s motion does not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or

60(b). With respect to Rule 59(e), plaintiff has failed to 1) present the court with newly

discovered evidence, 2) show that the court committed clear error or that the decision was

manifestly unjust; or 3) identify an intervening change in controlling law. Dixon v. Wallowa

County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003). With respect to Rule 60(b), plaintiff has failed to

show 1) mistake, surprise or excusable neglect; 2) newly discovered evidence; 3) fraud; 4) a void

judgment; 5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or 6) extraordinary circumstances. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October 4 and 22, 2007, motion

for reconsideration (court file doc. #192 and 193) are denied.

DATED: November 7, 2007.

Case 2:02-cv-00573-FCD-KJN Document 198 Filed 11/07/07 Page 2 of 2