Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01387/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01387-5/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

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

SALVADOR GONZALEZ VERDUZCO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARIN, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14-cv-01387-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 35)

Plaintiff Salvador Gonzalez Verduzco (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 22, 

2015, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s 

action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for 

failure to serve the defendants. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff objected, stating at length that his case is 

meritorious, and that he would seek legal counsel to assist him in prosecuting his action. (ECF 

No. 32.) Finding these objections did not undermine the grounds for dismissal, the Court adopted 

the findings and recommendations in full, and dismissed the case, without prejudice, for failure 

to serve the defendants. (ECF No. 33.) Judgment was entered accordingly. (ECF No. 34.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 35.) In the 

motion, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred by dismissing his “very legal demand,” as he is not 

trying to steal money from the state, and he “totally disagrees” with the dismissal. (Id. at 1.) The 

Case 1:14-cv-01387-AWI-BAM Document 36 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Court construes this motion as a request for reconsideration of the Court’s judgment pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the court to relieve a party from an order 

for any reason that justifies relief. “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). “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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration merely alleges disagreement with the judgment, and sets 

forth no grounds for reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing this action. Therefore, 

Plaintiff has not shown that reconsideration is warranted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration 

(ECF No. 35) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01387-AWI-BAM Document 36 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 2