Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00290/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00290-18/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

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 Durrell A. Puckett is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Both parties have consented to United States magistrate judge 

jurisdiction. (ECF No. 46.) 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s March 31, 

2016, order denying his request to extend the discovery deadline, filed on April 21, 2016. 

I.

DISCUSSION

Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 

722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. 

Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature 

to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of 

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 

DURRELL A. PUCKETT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

K. BRANDON,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00290-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S MARCH 31, 

2016, ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO EXTEND 

THE DISCOVERY DEADLINE

[ECF Nos. 59, 60] 

Case 1:14-cv-00290-SAB Document 62 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 3
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

828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any 

reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent 

injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 

(9th Cir. 2008). The moving party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his 

control. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d at 749. 

Plaintiff’s claim that he sought information as to the identity and location of inmate witness 

Singletary is vague and devoid of support, and Plaintiff cannot demonstrate at this stage of the 

proceedings (over ten months after the expiration of the discovery deadline) that the discovery 

deadline should be extended for that purpose. Plaintiff conducted discovery in this case and served, at 

a minimum, requests for interrogatories on November 4, 2014. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff’s claim that he 

sought information from Defendants but was denied, alone, is not sufficient to warrant an extension of 

the discovery deadline. Plaintiff was advised in the Court’s discovery and scheduling order “[i]f 

discovery disputes arise, the parties shall comply with all pertinent rules including Rules 5, 7, 11, 26, 

and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 110, 130, 131, 133, 142, 144 and 230(l) of 

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.” (ECF 

No. 13, Order at 2:10-12.) There is simply no indication that Plaintiff diligently sought relevant 

discovery in the past and was improperly denied such information. Indeed, there is no indication that 

Defendant stonewalled Plaintiff in discovery by failing to respond and/or produce evidence. If 

Plaintiff believed certain information should have been disclosed by Defendant but was not, the proper 

vehicle was for Plaintiff to file a motion to compel. No motions to compel were filed in this action 

and the discovery deadline expired on May 5, 2015. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration shall be denied. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00290-SAB Document 62 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 3
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

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s March 31, 2016, order denying his 

request to extend the discovery deadline is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings pending a ruling on this motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00290-SAB Document 62 Filed 05/09/16 Page 3 of 3