Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02068/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02068-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWIN VALENCIA, No. 2:13-cv-2068-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

RON BARNS,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. Pending before the court is

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 11) of the court’s denial of a temporary restraining

order.

Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment and any

order based on, among other things: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)

newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered

within ten days of entry of judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an

opposing party. A motion for reconsideration on any of these grounds must be brought within a

1

Case 2:13-cv-02068-CMK Document 18 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 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

reasonable time and no later than one year of entry of judgment or the order being challenged. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

Here, plaintiff disagrees with the court’s decision to deny his motion for a

temporary restraining order without prejudice. He does not claim there is any new evidence or

any misconduct. Plaintiff sets forth additional detail as to the factors supporting a temporary

restraining order. However, none of the additional information plaintiff provides the court shows

the court made a mistake in denying his premature motion, only that plaintiff disagrees with that

decision. A disagreement with the court’s decision is not a sufficient basis for the court to grant

a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60. Plaintiff has filed a renewed motion, which the

court will address separately. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration (Doc. 11) is denied.

DATED: December 18, 2014

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:13-cv-02068-CMK Document 18 Filed 12/19/14 Page 2 of 2