Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01024/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01024-12/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

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

Plaintiff Benny Ford is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s September 

2, 2014, order resolving Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. Defendants filed an opposition on 

September 24, 2014.

Although Plaintiff does not reference that he seeks reconsideration under Rule 60 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court construes his motion to be filed as such. 

Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 

722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. 

Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature 

to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of 

BENNY FORD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

G. WILDEY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01024-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

[ECF No. 72]

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 83 Filed 10/07/14 Page 1 of 3
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

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). 

Rule 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 injustice and is to be 

utilized only where extraordinary exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). The 

moving party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control. Harvest v. Castro, 

531 F.3d at 749. 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.” 

In the instant motion, Plaintiff argues that he had to file a grievance to view his central file. 

However, Plaintiff presents no relevant evidence that he has made any recent efforts to view his 

central file simply by inquiring for it. Further, as declared by the Litigation Coordinator M. Kimbrell, 

as of June 17, 2014, Plaintiff has made no request to view his central file. Although Plaintiff 

references a request to review his central file made in 2011, it was noted that Plaintiff was provided 

copies of certain documents and any further requests for non-legal documents must be paid for from 

prison funds pursuant to institutional policy and procedure. (ECF No. 52, Ex. N.) Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s ruling must be denied.

Plaintiff further claims he does not have access to his medical records and also complains that 

he wishes to view his medical records from 1979 to the present. However, Plaintiff’s discovery 

request, at issue in the motion to compel, specifically asked for records from “11-19-2013 to duration 

of litigation.” (ECF No. 57-4.) Plaintiff initiated this action on June 7, 2010, and Plaintiff was 

provided his medical records from 2010 through 2013, as he specifically requested. (ECF Nos. 1, 57-

4.) Furthermore, Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the medical records and made no complaint at the 

time he viewed and received the records, nor at any time after he sought other records, beyond filing a 

motion to compel. (ECF No. 57-4 at 3-4.) Plaintiff has failed to provide newly discovered evidence 

to support his contention that he has been stopped, thwarted, or obstructed in viewing his records. As 

Defendants submit, should Plaintiff wish to view additional records, he must make an appropriate 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 83 Filed 10/07/14 Page 2 of 3
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

request, clearly identifying the date of the materials he wishes to view. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

motion for reconsideration must be denied. 

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 83 Filed 10/07/14 Page 3 of 3