Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00507/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00507-7/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY DOWNS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LORI BALLS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0507 KJN P

ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. He consented to proceed before 

the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). As set forth below, plaintiff’s 

November 12, 2015 objections, construed as a request for reconsideration, is granted, but upon 

reconsideration, the October 28, 2015 order is affirmed; and his November 23, 2015 objections, 

construed as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure is denied. 

II. Background

On April 22, 2015, in an eight page screening order, the court reviewed plaintiff’s claims, 

found he failed to state cognizable civil rights claims, and provided him instructions on how to 

amend his complaint. (ECF No. 7.) Subsequently, plaintiff was granted four separate 

opportunities over a six month period in which to file an amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 11, 13, 

Case 2:15-cv-00507-KJN Document 30 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 5
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

15, 18.) Pursuant to the last order, issued September 23, 2015, plaintiff’s amended complaint was 

due on or before October 14, 2015. (ECF No. 18.) 

On October 19, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify the undersigned (ECF No. 20), 

which was denied on October 28, 2015 (ECF No. 21).

Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, and on November 4, 2015, this action was 

dismissed without prejudice.

On November 12, 2015, plaintiff filed objections to the October 28, 2015 order denying 

plaintiff’s motion for disqualification of the undersigned. (ECF No. 24.) On November 23, 2015, 

plaintiff filed a document styled, “Objection to Dismissal file Date 11/7/15.” (ECF No. 25.) 

On December 10, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On March 7, 2016, the Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held the appeal in abeyance pending the district court’s ruling on 

whether the November 23, 2015 filing is a motion listed in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 

4(a)(4).

The court construes plaintiff’s November 12, 2015 objections as a request for 

reconsideration of the October 28, 2015 order, and construes plaintiff’s November 23, 2015 filing 

as a motion for relief from judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

III. Motion for Reconsideration

In his November 12, 2015 objections, plaintiff claims he never stated he notified the 

appellate court that the undersigned should be disqualified, mentions that a judge in the Northern 

District of California issued a stipulation and order in Armstrong v. Davis, No. C94-2307CW 

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2000), and objects that the undersigned “didn’t cite one case law pertaining to 

ADA, let alone any case law.” (ECF No. 24 at 1.) Plaintiff specifically objects that the 

undersigned failed to cite to any “legitimate case law from the Ninth Circuit or U.S. Supreme 

Court that pertains [to Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)] and California Board of Prison 

Terms stipulation and order.” (ECF No. 24 at 2.) In his November 23 filing, plaintiff again 

objects that the court did not “cite any case law” in denying his motion for disqualification. 

“[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 

Case 2:15-cv-00507-KJN Document 30 Filed 04/06/16 Page 2 of 5
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

is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. 

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). A motion 

for reconsideration “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.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).

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

“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. 

United States. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Courts 

construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the alteration or amendment of a 

judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful 

party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present “contentions which might have 

been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F.Supp. 1003, 1009 

(C.D. Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986); Keyes v. 

National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991). These holdings

“reflect[] district courts’ concerns for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial 

efficiency.” Costello, 765 F.Supp. at 1009. Additionally, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, 

when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party must show what “new or different facts or 

circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or 

what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j).

Previous adverse rulings are substantively insufficient to support recusal. See Liteky v. 

United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid 

basis for a bias or partiality motion”); Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(allegations stemming entirely from a district judge’s adverse rulings do not provide an adequate 

basis for recusal). The proper mechanism by which to challenge an adverse ruling is an appeal, 

not recusal, Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555, as plaintiff pursued in the instant case. Moreover, the denial 

of plaintiff’s motion for disqualification was based on 28 U.S.C. § 455. No citation to the ADA 

or other legal authority was required. Plaintiff presents no new facts, highly unusual 

circumstances, or evidence demonstrating that the undersigned should be disqualified. 

Case 2:15-cv-00507-KJN Document 30 Filed 04/06/16 Page 3 of 5
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

4

For all of the above reasons, the October 28, 2015 order is affirmed.

IV. Rule 60(b)

Rule 60(b) provides as follows:

Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or 

Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a 

party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or 

proceeding for the following reasons:

(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; 

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is 

based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or 

applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; 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 his November 23 filing, plaintiff states that he objects to dismissal of the action on 

October 28, 2015, and claims the undersigned issued an order plaintiff did not receive until 

November 6, 2015. Plaintiff claims that he filed an objection that was not addressed by the court, 

and therefore is “filing an objection to dismissal of this action.” (ECF No. 25.) 

While not entirely clear, it appears that plaintiff objects that he did not receive the order 

denying his motion for disqualification prior to the order dismissing this action. Plaintiff claims 

under penalty of perjury that he did not receive the October 28, 2015 order until November 6, 

2015. (ECF No. 25.) However, review of plaintiff’s objections to the October 28, 2015 order 

reflects that plaintiff signed his three page, typewritten filing on November 5, 2015, also under 

Case 2:15-cv-00507-KJN Document 30 Filed 04/06/16 Page 4 of 5
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

5

penalty of perjury. (ECF No. 24 at 2.) In addition, his proof of service states that he served the 

document on November 5, 2015. (ECF. No. 24 at 3.) 

Moreover, plaintiff’s objections to the dismissal of this action provide no facts, 

circumstances, or evidence to support an order vacating the judgment. Plaintiff fails to allege 

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, or any other facts demonstrating that relief 

under Rule 60(b) is appropriate. Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment is denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s November 12, 2015 objections (ECF No. 24), are construed as a request for 

reconsideration, and the request is granted;

2. Upon reconsideration, the October 28, 2015 order (ECF No. 21) is affirmed; and

3. Plaintiff’s November 23, 2015 objections (ECF No. 25), construed as a motion for 

relief from judgment (ECF No. 23), is denied.

Dated: April 5, 2016

down0507.60b

Case 2:15-cv-00507-KJN Document 30 Filed 04/06/16 Page 5 of 5