Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00997/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00997-11/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOREE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:17-cv-000997-DAD-JLT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION 

(Doc. No. 64)

Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302

On February 21, 2019, the parties to this action reached a settlement agreement. (Doc. 

No. 44.) Later that same day, plaintiff filed a document titled “Good Faith Settlement Requested 

Terms Made Then Breached.” (Doc. No. 46.) On March 5, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation 

for voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 

(Doc. No. 47.) On March 20, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued an Amended Order on 

Plaintiff’s Notice Regarding Settlement, in which the court denied plaintiff’s motion insofar as it 

could be construed as a motion to enforce the settlement. (Doc. No. 51.) Plaintiff subsequently 

filed an opposition (Doc. No. 53) and “Objections and Questions” (Doc. No. 52), which the court 

construed as motions for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order denying plaintiff’s 

Case 1:17-cv-00997-DAD-JLT Document 65 Filed 01/29/20 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

motion to enforce the settlement. (Doc. No. 54.) On June 17, 2019, the undersigned denied 

plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 61.)

Before the court now is plaintiff’s filing on January 21, 2020, entitled: “Motion 

Requesting Magistrate Findings and Recommendations be denied.” (Doc. No. 64.) The court 

construes plaintiff’s filing as a second motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order 

denying plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement (Doc. No. 51). 

“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 is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “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.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 

F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in 

original).

In the pending motion for reconsideration, plaintiff does not raise any new arguments. 

Rather, he continues to assert that correctional officers confiscated certain property he had 

received as a condition of the parties’ settlement agreement in this action. (Doc. No. 64.) As the 

court explained in its June 17, 2019 order denying plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration, 

“[p]laintiff’s displeasure with the ruling on his motion to enforce the settlement fails to show that 

it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” (Doc. No. 61 at 2.) Moreover, the court advised 

plaintiff that he “may file a separate, new civil rights action” to bring his claims that correctional 

officers retaliated against him by confiscating certain materials he received as part of the 

settlement of this action. (Id. at 2–3.)

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 64), deemed to be a renewed motion for 

reconsideration, is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00997-DAD-JLT Document 65 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 2