Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01334/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01334-6/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOYD SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADVENTIST HEALTH BAKERSFIELD, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-01334-KES-CDB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 18)

Plaintiff Floyd Scott seeks reconsideration of the October 22, 2024 order dismissing this 

action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

On April 19, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss 

this action for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Doc. 12. 

The findings and recommendations were adopted on October 22, 2024, and judgment was entered 

that same date. Docs. 16, 17. On October 30, 2024, plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration. 

Doc. 18. 

II. DISCUSSION

Although plaintiff does not indicate the rule of procedure under which he seeks relief, the 

Court will liberally construe the motion and treat the motion as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief 

Case 1:22-cv-01334-KES-CDB Document 19 Filed 01/13/25 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

from judgment or order and as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.

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

district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 

on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 

evidence ...; (3) fraud ... of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

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

Civ. P. 60(b).

“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,” and it “may not be used to 

raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 

raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 

F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks & citation omitted). Reconsideration of 

a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and 

conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F. 3d 877, 890 

(9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). In seeking reconsideration, the moving party 

“must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control.” Harvest, 531 F.3d at 749 

(internal quotation marks & citation omitted).

Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that a movant show “what new or 

different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown” 

previously, “what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were 

not shown” at the time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered.

Plaintiff’s motion does not identify any basis under Rule 60 upon which this Court should 

reconsider its order dismissing this action. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any circumstances 

warranting reconsideration of the Court’s prior order. The Court considered plaintiff’s two sets of 

objections when issuing its prior order and plaintiff presents neither newly discovered evidence 

nor an intervening change in the controlling law that would warrant reconsideration. Plaintiff 

Case 1:22-cv-01334-KES-CDB Document 19 Filed 01/13/25 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

merely repeats his earlier objections and further argues his Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs claims against defendants Condie and Thomas should have 

been permitted to proceed. Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law providing a basis upon which 

the Court should reverse its prior decision. 

The Court has discretion to amend or alter the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 59(e), but such remedy is “extraordinary” and “should be used sparingly.” Allstate Ins. 

Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). “In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be 

granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the 

judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously 

unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the 

amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. Plaintiff has not 

established any basis for extraordinary relief under Rule 59(e), and the Court does not find that he 

is entitled to such relief.

Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. See Kona Enters., Inc., 229 F. 

3d at 890 (reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the 

interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources”).

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 18) is DENIED; and

2. This case remains closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2025 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01334-KES-CDB Document 19 Filed 01/13/25 Page 3 of 3