Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00409/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00409-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

15cv409-AJB-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KYLE JAMES,

Plaintiff, 

v.

DEPUTY AGNEW and DEPUTY 

TADE,

Defendants. 

Case No.: 15cv409-AJB-MDD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

[ECF No. 128]

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration

[ECF No. 128] and Plaintiff’s declaration in support of his motion for 

reconsideration [ECF No. 126]. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s 

motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleges 

that Defendant Tade violated his civil rights by using excessive force during 

an incident on August 13, 2014. (ECF No. 12).

On November 28, 2016, Plaintiff constructively filed a “motion 

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 129 Filed 01/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

15cv409-AJB-MDD

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

requesting more time for discovery and to delay summary judgment 

proceedings.” (ECF No. 111). The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion on 

December 16, 2016. (ECF No. 115). On December 27, 2016, Plaintiff 

constructively filed a motion for reconsideration on the Court’s December 16, 

2016, Order [ECF No. 128] and Plaintiff’s declaration in support of his motion 

for reconsideration [ECF No. 126].

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b),

[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its 

legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for 

the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with 

reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to 

move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether 

previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or 

misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the 

judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on 

an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or 

applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other 

reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

Further, Local Rule 7.1(i)(1) provides that a party may apply for 

reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any 

order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in 

whole or in part . . .” S.D. Cal. Civ.L.R. 7.1(i). The party seeking 

reconsideration must show “what new or different facts and circumstances 

are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior 

application.” Id.

Plaintiff’s original motion requesting an extension of discovery and to 

delay summary judgment sets forth five arguments: (1) summary judgment 

proceedings should be postponed until discovery requests are answered; (2) 

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 129 Filed 01/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

15cv409-AJB-MDD

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

Defendants waived their objections by failing to respond to Plaintiff’s 

discovery requests; (3) Plaintiff’s discovery requests are relevant to proving 

punitive damages; (4) Plaintiff’s discovery requests are relevant to disproving 

Defendants’ defenses; and (5) there is good cause to extend discovery because 

Defendants have intentionally stalled responding to discovery and Plaintiff’s 

transfer to prison delayed his ability to propound discovery. (ECF No. 111 at 

2-12).

In the instant motion, Plaintiff argues that the Court’s December 16, 

2016, Order was made in clear error. (ECF No. 128 at 4). Plaintiff asserts

that “[t]he [C]ourt should have granted the Plaintiff at least one extension for 

discovery” because Defendants intentionally delayed responding to Plaintiff’s 

discovery requests and other delays were caused by Plaintiff’s “multiple 

transfers from facility to facility during the discovery phase.” (Id. at 4). 

Plaintiff also contends that his discovery requests are relevant to disprove 

Defendants’ defenses and that Defendants waived their objections by failing 

to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Id. at 5-7). Plaintiff’s 

declaration reiterates each of his arguments. (ECF No. 126).

Plaintiff’s arguments in his November 28, 2016, motion are identical to 

Plaintiff’s arguments in the instant motion for reconsideration. (See ECF 

Nos. 111, 128). Plaintiff does not present the Court with newly discovered 

evidence or new or different facts or circumstances. Rather, Plaintiff’s motion 

for reconsideration shows that Plaintiff merely disagrees with the Court’s 

December 16, 2016, Order. This is insufficient to warrant reconsideration of 

the Court’s prior order. See Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 

877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000), quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 

656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).

//

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 129 Filed 01/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

15cv409-AJB-MDD

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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 129 Filed 01/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4