Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01028/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01028-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01028 DLB PC

ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS FOR DE NOVO REVIEW AS 

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

[ECF Nos. 23, 25]

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

[ECF Nos. 23, 25]

Plaintiff Rodney Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge on 

August 11, 2014. Plaintiff filed this action on June 26, 2014. On July 17, 2014, the Court granted 

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

a refund of his filing fees. On October 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order prohibiting 

the CDCR from deducting monies from his prison trust account. Plaintiff complained that recent 

deductions by the CDCR violate the Court’s orders. 

On October 15, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for refund of his filing fee and his 

motion for an order prohibiting the CDCR from deducting monies from his prison trust account. 

The Court determined that the deductions were proper. 

On October 24, 2014, and again on November 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed motions for a de novo 

review of the Court’s order. Plaintiff is advised that insofar as he consented to the jurisdiction of the 

Case 1:14-cv-01028-DLB Document 26 Filed 11/14/14 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

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), this case was assigned to the undersigned “to 

conduct any or all proceedings” in this matter, including “order[ing] the entry of judgment in the 

case.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). De novo review by a district judge is not available. Therefore, the 

Court will construe Plaintiff’s requests for de novo review as motions for reconsideration.

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 manifest injustice 

and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 

737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must 

demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff 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 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). 

The basis for Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is his disagreement with the Court’s

decision and the Court’s application of the law to his motions. Plaintiff has not shown clear error or 

other meritorious grounds for relief, and has therefore not met his burden as the party moving for 

reconsideration. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880. Plaintiff’s disagreement is not 

sufficient grounds for relief from the order. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d at 1131.

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01028-DLB Document 26 Filed 11/14/14 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

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff’s motions for de novo review are CONSTRUED as motions for reconsideration; 

and 

2) Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01028-DLB Document 26 Filed 11/14/14 Page 3 of 3