Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01050/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01050-11/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

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY E. WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. MINA BESHARA, ET. AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-1050-JLT-HBK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 47)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on February 14, 2022. 

(Doc. 47.) Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the January 7, 2022, order adopting the findings and 

recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction. (Id. at 1; see also

Docs. 42, 43.) Plaintiff contends the Court erroneously concluded that he filed no objections to 

the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 47 at 1.) Plaintiff points to exhibits included with his 

motion for reconsideration, including a December 21, 2021, “Memo to a Prisoner” from jail 

officials detailing documents mailed. (Id. at 2, 4-5.) Also attached to the motion appears to be a 

copy of the objections Plaintiff intended to submit. (Id. at 9-24.).

The Court construes the motion as one filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), 

which allows the Court to provide relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the 

following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 

Case 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK Document 50 Filed 04/12/22 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

(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.

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 

F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) 

requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did 

not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 

Plaintiff has not established a sufficient reason under Rule 60 to warrant reconsideration 

of the January 11, 2021, order. Though it appears, based on the memo dated December 21, 2021 

from the San Francisco County Jail that Plaintiff timely mailed objections to the Court in this 

case, the objections were not received. (See docket.) Even if the Court had received Plaintiff’s 

objections, the result would have been the same. Plaintiff’s objections primarily re-assert the 

allegations contained in his motions for injunctive relief. (Compare Doc. 47 at 9-24 with Docs. 

29, 30, 31.) In pertinent part, Plaintiff initiated the action while detained at Coalinga State 

Hospital concerning his conditions of confinement but was later transferred to the San Francisco 

County Jail. Among other things, the findings and recommendations correctly indicated that 

there is no nexus between the injury complained of in the FAC and Plaintiff’s injunctive relief 

requests, so the Court could not grant relief. (Id. at 2, 6-7.) Plaintiff’s objections do not 

meaningfully challenge this central conclusion. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 

47) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2022 

Case 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK Document 50 Filed 04/12/22 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

Case 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK Document 50 Filed 04/12/22 Page 3 of 3