Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00359/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00359-1/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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0359-Mtn Reconsideration.wpd 1 11cv0359 AJB (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED BURRELL,

CDCR #T-04303,

Civil No. 11cv0359 AJB (BLM)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[ECF No. 6]

vs.

OSUNA; HOGAN; DOYL;

DOMINGO URIBE, Jr.,

Defendants.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend” in which he is “requesting

this Court to reconsider Plaintiff’s Complaint.” See Pl.’s Mot. at 1. Accordingly, the Court

construes Plaintiff’s request as a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s March 21, 2011

Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and sua sponte

dismissing his Complaint for failing to state a claim. See Mar. 21, 2011 Order at 1.

I.

Procedural History

On February 18, 2011, and while incarcerated at the California Men’s Colony - East,

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) & § 1915A(b). See

Mar. 21, 2011 Order at 6-7. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order

Case 3:11-cv-00359-AJB-BLM Document 7 Filed 04/27/11 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0359-Mtn Reconsideration.wpd 2 11cv0359 AJB (BLM)

to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Id. Instead of filing an Amended

Complaint, Plaintiff filed the Motion that is currently before this Court.

II.

Plaintiff’s Motion

A. Standard of Review

Under Rule 60, a motion for “relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding” may be

filed within a “reasonable time,” but usually must be filed “no more than a year after the entry

of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” FED.R.CIV.P. 60(c). Reconsideration

under Rule 60 may be granted in the case of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) fraud; or if (4) the judgment is void; (5) the

judgment has been satisfied; or (6) for any other reason justifying relief. FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b).

B. Plaintiff’s Arguments

Here, Plaintiff offers no argument in support of his request for the Court to “reconsider

Plaintiff’s Complaint.” Pl.’s Mot. at 1. The only argument that the Court can surmise from

Plaintiff’s moving papers is his statement that “Defendants in the above matter conduct was

committed while acting under color of state law and their conduct violated a right secured by the

constitutional and laws of the United States.” Id. 

In the Court’s Order dated March 21st, the Court found a number of deficiencies in

Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff seems to merely disagree with the Court’s Order but offers not

basis for his disagreement. A motion for reconsideration cannot be granted merely because

Plaintiff is unhappy with the judgment, frustrated by the Court’s application of the facts to

binding precedent or because he disagrees with the ultimate decision. See 11 Charles Alan

Wright & Arthur R. Miller Federal Practice & Procedure 2d § 2858 (Supp. 2007) (citing

Edwards v. Velvac, Inc., 19 F.R.D. 504, 507 (D. Wis. 1956)). Thus, without more, the Court

finds Plaintiff has failed to show that the Court rendered a “manifestly unjust decision,” and has

further failed to identify any intervening changes in controlling law which justify reconsideration

of the Court’s Order. McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255; School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. 

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00359-AJB-BLM Document 7 Filed 04/27/11 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0359-Mtn Reconsideration.wpd 3 11cv0359 AJB (BLM)

III.

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 6] is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 27, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00359-AJB-BLM Document 7 Filed 04/27/11 Page 3 of 3