Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00006/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00006-17/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

JASON LATRELL THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. WILBER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-00006-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO 

COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

(Doc. 102)

I. Background

Plaintiff Jason Latrell Thomas (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 4, 2010. Pursuant 

to the scheduling order filed on April 30, 2014, this matter is set for jury trial on: (1) Plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Vikjord and Hernandez, (2) 

Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Vikjord and Hernandez arising 

out of the use of force on August 25, 2007, and (3) Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim 

against Defendants Frescura and Price arising out of the use of force on or around February 18, 

2007. 

On April 30, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order to 

conduct further discovery. (Doc. 99.) Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and to compel 

the production of documents on May 12, 2014. (Doc. 102.) Defendants Frescura, Hernandez, 

Case 1:10-cv-00006-SKO Document 112 Filed 08/04/14 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

Price, and Vikjord (“Defendants”) filed an opposition on June 2, 2014, and the motion was 

submitted upon the record without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). (Doc. 107.)

II. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order 

for any reason that justifies relief.1 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) (quotations marks and citation omitted). The 

moving party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control. Id. (quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff 

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,” and “why 

the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” 

“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,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos 

Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations 

omitted, 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) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also In re Pacific Far East Lines, Inc., 889 

F.2d 242, 250 (9th Cir. 1989) (Rule 60(b)(6) may provide relief where parties were confronted 

with extraordinary circumstances but it does not provide a second chance for parties who made 

deliberate choices). 

III. Discussion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is devoid of any grounds for relief from the order 

denying his motion to modify the scheduling order. The Court carefully considered Plaintiff’s

 

1

Plaintiff’s motion does identify the legal authority supporting his request for reconsideration, and in the absence of 

any other applicable subsection, the Court construes the motion as brought pursuant to 60(b)(6). 

Case 1:10-cv-00006-SKO Document 112 Filed 08/04/14 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

motion, and provided a detailed explanation in plain, clear language regarding the lack of good 

cause to modify the scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. Southern California 

Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court declines to rethink what it already 

thought through merely because Plaintiff disagrees with the ruling and desires further discovery. 

Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels, __ F.Supp.2d __, __ , No. 11CV1842-GPC (KSC), 2014 WL 3002297, 

at *2 (S.D.Cal. Jul. 2, 2014) (citing Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 252 F.Supp.2d 936, 938 (D.Ariz. 

2003)) (quotation marks omitted).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is HEREBY DENIED, with prejudice, 

and his accompanying motion to compel is DENIED, with prejudice, as untimely.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00006-SKO Document 112 Filed 08/04/14 Page 3 of 3