Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00939/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00939-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

JASON TAYLOR,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

NORM KRAMER, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00939-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 44.)

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jason Taylor (APlaintiff@) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff and fifteen coplaintiffs filed the Complaint commencing this action on June 18, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On 

September 26, 2014, the court issued an order severing the plaintiffs’ claims and opening 

fifteen new cases, one for each of the fifteen co-plaintiffs. (Doc. 41.) Plaintiff Jason Taylor is 

now the sole Plaintiff proceeding with this case.

On July 10, 2014, before the plaintiffs’ claims were severed, the court issued an order 

denying the plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of counsel, (Doc. 21), and on July 17, 2014, 

issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ request to proceed as a class action, (Doc. 22). On 

Case 1:14-cv-00939-AWI-GSA Document 45 Filed 11/25/14 Page 1 of 3
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

November 17, 2014, Plaintiff and the fifteen former co-plaintiffs filed a motion for 

reconsideration of the orders denying appointment of counsel and denying class action 

certification. (Doc. 44.)

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 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). 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).

Case 1:14-cv-00939-AWI-GSA Document 45 Filed 11/25/14 Page 2 of 3
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

The plaintiffs have not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce 

the court to reverse its prior decisions. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration shall be 

denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion for 

reconsideration, filed on November 17, 2014, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 24, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00939-AWI-GSA Document 45 Filed 11/25/14 Page 3 of 3