Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01839/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01839-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Dion Anderson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on 

November 5, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) On May 17, 2013, the Court issued a screening order 

dismissing this action, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 15.) On June 7, 

2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on the Court’s screening order. (ECF No. 16.)

Plaintiff has not yet filed an amended complaint. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs relief from 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 . . . by an opposing party, . . . or 

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration 

must be made within a reasonable time. Id. 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). The moving party “must 

demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. Local Rule 230(j) requires 

DION ANDERSON,

Plaintiff

v.

EDMOND G. BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:12-cv-01839-AWI-DLB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

ORDER REQUIRNG PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 16)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:12-cv-01839-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 10/31/13 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

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,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or present 

evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” 

Marilyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(emphasis in original).

Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change 

in the law. Plaintiff’s motion merely reiterates the argument made in his original complaint. The 

Court previously provided Plaintiff with the appropriate legal standards for his claims and granted 

leave to amend the complaint. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of 

service of this order or this action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:12-cv-01839-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 10/31/13 Page 2 of 2