Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01475/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01475-0/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 05-CV-1475 J (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY GRAY, Civil

No.

05-CV-1475 J (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. # 74]

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Ricky Gray (“Plaintiff” or “Gray”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this

action for violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 29, 2006 Plaintiff filed a

motion directing Defendants to allow Plaintiff to correspond with inmates from other prisons. [Doc. #

58]. The motion was denied as vague and failing to establish the relevance of the evidence sought. 

[Doc. # 68]. On October 19, 2006 the chambers received Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the

previous order pursuant to Rule 60(b) (“the motion”). [Doc. # 74]. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

The moving party under Rule 60(b) may be entitled to relief from a previous order for the

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered

evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; ... (5) the judgment has

been satisfied, released, discharged, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have

prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

Plaintiff fails to show any of the above grounds for reconsideration of the previous Order. Gray

Case 3:05-cv-01475-MMA-CAB Document 85 Filed 11/28/06 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 05-CV-1475 J (CAB)

simply reargues his previous motion. He lists several inmates from other prisons who, he believes,

would provide affidavits in support of his case. Plaintiff again fails to describe the information to be

supplied through the affidavits or to explain its relevance. Therefore his motion for reconsideration is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 28, 2006

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01475-MMA-CAB Document 85 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 2