Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06106/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06106-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN BERNARD BROOKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAYMOND ANDREWS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-06106-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION, WITH

PREJUDICE

(Doc. 137)

Plaintiff Steven Bernard Brooks (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides for recovery of money damages against

federal actors. This action was proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on April 22,

2004. (Docs. 30, 46.) On March 5, 2007, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendation, and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, thus concluding this

action in its entirety. (Doc. 135.) On March 22, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration.

(Doc. 137.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on

grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse

party, . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, in any event “not

more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.

Case 1:03-cv-06106-LJO -SMS Document 138 Filed 03/26/07 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

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin

Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983)

(en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce

the Court to reverse its 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, 828 F.2d 514 (9th

Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015, 108 S.Ct. 1752, 100 L.Ed.2d 214 (1988). The Ninth Circuit

has stated that “[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding

clauses.’” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986)

(quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981)). Accordingly, “the clause is

reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id. When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local

Rule 78-230(k) requires a party to show the “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.”

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order on the ground that the Court did not

comment specifically on each of his objections the Findings and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s

motion is without merit. Plaintiff is entitled to a de novo review of the record in this action and

plaintiff received one. Such review necessarily included a review of the objections. Plaintiff is not

entitled to line by line discussion of each objection tendered. The Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendation is fully supported by the record. There is no evidence creating a triable issue of

fact with respect to plaintiff’s equal protection claim.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed March 22, 2007, is HEREBY DENIED, with

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06106-LJO -SMS Document 138 Filed 03/26/07 Page 2 of 2