Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00182/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00182-21/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD B. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-0182-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO VACATE AND REOPEN CASE

(ECF No. 74)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 8 & 31.) 

Plaintiff began this action by filing his Complaint on February 2, 2011. (ECF No. 

1.) On March 17, 2011, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with 

leave to amend. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on April 20, 

2011. (ECF No. 15.) On August 29, 2011, the Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a), and found that Plaintiff stated a 

cognizable claim against Defendants Enenmoh, Faria, LeMay, Byers and Oneyeje for 

allegedly violating the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to 

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 75 Filed 05/04/15 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 2

Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. (ECF No. 20.) On December 9, 2011, the Court 

appointed counsel for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 31.)

On March 28, 2012, Defendants Enenmoh, Faria, LeMay, and Oneyeje filed a 

motion to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (ECF No. 45.) On April 2, 2012, Defendant 

Byers filed a notice of joinder in the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 48.)

On October 24, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 

Recommendations to grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. On 

November 20, 2012, the District Court adopted those Findings and Recommendations 

and dismissed the case without prejudice. (ECF Nos. 72 & 73.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s December 8, 2014 motion to vacate the Court’s 

order of dismissal and reopen the case. (ECF No. 74.) Plaintiff seeks to have his case 

reopened on the basis that his Court-appointed attorney failed to notify him of the 

dismissal and represented that his case was still pending. 

II. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where 

extraordinary circumstances’” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(quoting Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control.” 

Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103. In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 

230(j) requires a party to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed 

to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other 

grounds exist for the motion.” 

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 75 Filed 05/04/15 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 3

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn 

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

and “‘[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. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 

1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 

834, 856 (D. N.J. 1992)).

Plaintiff is represented by counsel in this action. (ECF No. 31.) Unless and until 

Plaintiff’s counsel files a motion to withdraw, Plaintiff may not file motions on his own 

behalf. Plaintiff’s motion is improper and will therefore be STRICKEN.

Even if properly filed, Plaintiff has not presented a basis for reconsideration. 

Plaintiff’s case was dismissed after the Court found that Defendants’ had met their 

burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The 

failure of Plaintiff’s counsel to notify him of the dismissal is not a basis for this Court to 

reconsider the underlying ruling. Plaintiff has not presented any new evidence or legal 

authority which would warrant reopening the case. 

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to vacate and reopen (ECF No. 74.) is 

HEREBY STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 75 Filed 05/04/15 Page 3 of 3