Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00726/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00726-4/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

ZANE HUBBARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEATRIS, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00726 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

[ECF No. 17]

Plaintiff Zane Hubbard, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 16, 2013. The matter was referred 

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On April 23, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that the 

action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that 

objections were to be filed within twenty-one days. Over twenty-one days passed and Plaintiff 

did not file objections. On May 20, 2015, the undersigned adopted the Findings and 

Recommendations in full and dismissed the action.

On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections. On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion 

for reconsideration of the order dismissing the action.

 

Case 1:13-cv-00726-LJO-DLB Document 18 Filed 06/29/15 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

DISCUSSION

 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 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 quotations marks and citation omitted). 

The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control....” Id. 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 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) (internal quotations marks 

and citations omitted), and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 

disagreement with the Court's decision, and recapitulation ...” of that which was already 

considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 

1111, 1131 (E.D.Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly 

convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern–Tulare Water Dist. 

v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in 

part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

Here, Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider the order dismissing the action because 

he states he submitted his objections to the Findings and Recommendation on April 30, 2015. 

Plaintiff complains that his objections were not considered although they were timely submitted. 

Case 1:13-cv-00726-LJO-DLB Document 18 Filed 06/29/15 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

The Court notes that the proof of service on Plaintiff’s objections is dated April 30, 2015, 

however the objections were not filed until May 21, 2015, which was after the date they were 

due and after the Court had adopted the Findings and Recommendation and dismissed the action.

In any case, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections and finds that the objections do 

not alter the Court’s determination that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

procedure as set forth by the Magistrate Judge. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00726-LJO-DLB Document 18 Filed 06/29/15 Page 3 of 3