Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03233/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03233-14/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

Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.07\Hall233rec.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD GARY HALL, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

JAMES TILTON, et al., 

Defendants. ___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C 07-3233 RMW (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 132)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 alleging, inter alia, that he has been improperly housed at a Level III institution

and the prison has failed to comply with mandated regulations in the classification process. On

June 29, 2010, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as time-barred and, alternatively, for

failure to state a cognizable claim. On July 8, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. 

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for reconsideration where

one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that by due diligence could not have been discovered before the

court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of

the judgment; (6) any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v.

ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). Although couched in broad terms, subparagraph

*E-FILED - 8/17/10*

Case 5:07-cv-03233-RMW Document 135 Filed 08/17/10 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

Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.07\Hall233rec.wpd 2

(6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary. Twentieth Century -

Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). 

In the present motion, petitioner does not make a showing of mistake, inadvertence,

surprise or excusable neglect. He does not set forth any newly discovered evidence, fraud, or

any grounds for finding that the judgment is void or has been satisfied. Nor does he set forth any

other reason justifying relief. Petitioner’s arguments are merely a restatement of issues the court

considered and rejected. Petitioner may raise such arguments on appeal, but they are not

grounds for reconsideration. See id. 

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ RONALD M. WHYTE

 United States District Judge

8/17/10

Case 5:07-cv-03233-RMW Document 135 Filed 08/17/10 Page 2 of 2