Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00645/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00645-11/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

BARRY L. BROOKINS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

RAJENDRA DWIVEDI,

 Defendant.

1:18-cv-00645-DAD-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 54)

ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND TO 

PLAINTIFF:

(1) DOCUMENTS ## 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 & 44,

 AND

(2) A COPY OF THE DOCKET SHEET

 FOR THIS ACTION

I. BACKGROUND

Barry L. Brookins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on 

May 10, 2019, against sole defendant Dr. Rajendra Dwivedi (“Defendant”) for failing to provide 

adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) 

On March 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed an objection the Magistrate Judge’s order issued on 

March 10, 2020. (ECF No. 54.) The court construes Plaintiff’s objection as a motion for 

reconsideration. 

Case 1:18-cv-00645-DAD-GSA Document 57 Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 4
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

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(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; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b). 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 quotation 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). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly 

convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. 

v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in 

part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order denying as moot Plaintiff’s 

request for entry of default against defendant Dwivedi and denying Plaintiff’s motion for default 

Case 1:18-cv-00645-DAD-GSA Document 57 Filed 04/01/20 Page 2 of 4
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

judgment as premature, without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the 

proceedings. (ECF No. 52.) Plaintiff objects to the order for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff 

filed a timely motion for entry of default and neither Defendant nor Defendant’s attorney 

responded; (2) Plaintiff has not received any copies by the court regarding defendant Dwivedi’s 

request for the court to set aside the entry of default, filed on February 20, 2020; (3) Plaintiff has 

not received a copy of defendant Dwivedi’s request for extension of time to file a pleading 

responsive to the complaint; and, (4) Plaintiff’s request for a default against defendant Dwivedi 

is supported by a standard of review in United States v. Reyna-Tapia , 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2003) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

IV. DISCUSSION

The court offers this brief explanation of the court’s rulings in the order denying 

Plaintiff’s request for entry of default and motion for default judgment:

Plaintiff’s request for entry of default was denied because defendant 

Dwivedi filed a request for the court to set aside the entry of default and grant him 

an extension of time to respond to the complaint. Because the court had not 

entered default against defendant Dwivedi, Plaintiff’s request to set aside the entry 

of default was moot. The court found that Defendant’s failure to file a timely 

response to the complaint was not a willful act on his part, but merely a 

misunderstanding. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default was denied.

Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment was denied as premature because a 

motion for default judgment should not be filed until after default is entered, and 

Plaintiff filed it before default was entered. 

Plaintiff does not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature in his motion for 

reconsideration to induce the court to reverse its prior decisions. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration shall be denied.

It is not apparent why Plaintiff did not receive some of the documents that were served 

upon him. According to the court’s record, Plaintiff has had the same address throughout this 

case, and the court’s methods of service have not changed. The court shall send the documents 

Case 1:18-cv-00645-DAD-GSA Document 57 Filed 04/01/20 Page 3 of 4
4

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

on Plaintiff at his address of record, Kern Valley State Prison, P.O. Box 6000, Delano, California. 

In addition, the clerk shall be directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet, for his review. 

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on March 23, 2020, is DENIED; and

2. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff:

(1) Documents #39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44; and

(2) A copy of the docket sheet for this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00645-DAD-GSA Document 57 Filed 04/01/20 Page 4 of 4