Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01762/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01762-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

JEREMY JONES,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DR. CHEN, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01762-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR 

DISCOVERY RELIEF

(ECF No. 45)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse and 

Treatment Facility at Corcoran, California proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter proceeds on claims of medical 

indifference and retaliation against Defendant Chen. 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s February 12, 

2014 order (ECF No. 44) striking Plaintiff’s motion to set a hearing for the parties to conduct 

discovery and objecting to Defendant’s notice of deposition.

The motion for reconsideration of the Court’s February 12, 2014 order fails. The 

Court may relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b)(6). This relief is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest 

Case 1:11-cv-01762-MJS Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 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

injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances exist. Harvest v. 

Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). Furthermore, 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 of the prior motion.”

The Court struck Plaintiff’s motion to set a discovery hearing because no procedure 

exists for such relief. Plaintiff was advised: discovery requests are to be served by the

parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5, 20, 26-36, and Local Rule 135; they 

are to be filed when required by Local Rules 250.2, 250.3, and 250.4; and discovery 

motions not compliant with applicable rules, procedures and requirements will be stricken. 

(ECF No. 44, at 1:28-2:4). 

Plaintiff’s argues reconsideration is appropriate because Defendant has noticed his 

deposition even though the February 12, 2014 order denied Plaintiff the right to depose 

Defendant. Plaintiff does not identify any error of law or fact in the Court’s order. If Plaintiff 

desires to request or respond to or object to discovery, he must do so consistent with the 

foregoing requirements. These requirements are stated in more detail in the February 12th 

order.

Plaintiff’s objection to notice of deposition is denied. He states no reason for 

objecting other than to reiterate his reconsideration argument, which is deficient for the 

reasons stated. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and 

for discovery relief (ECF No. 45) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END:

Case 1:11-cv-01762-MJS Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 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

12eob4

Case 1:11-cv-01762-MJS Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 3 of 3