Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00928/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00928-2/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

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

CHANDELL L. HOWARD,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

E. CHAPA, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00928-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 11.)

I. BACKGROUND

Chandell L. Howard (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the 

Complaint commencing this action on June 17, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff 

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c), and no 

other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of 

the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all 

proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local 

Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

Case 1:14-cv-00928-BAM Document 12 Filed 04/29/15 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

On April 2, 2015, the court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for immediate 

service of process and for the imposition of sanctions against prison officials. (Doc. 9.) On 

April 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the court’s delay in reviewing his case, which the 

court construes as a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order issued on April 2, 2015. 

(Doc. 9.)

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 

Case 1:14-cv-00928-BAM Document 12 Filed 04/29/15 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

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).

Plaintiff objects to the court’s abuse of discretion in the failure to process and review 

his Complaint. Plaintiff complains that he has been transferred to Pelican Bay State Prison and 

subjected to retaliation. Plaintiff also states that “[a]lthough [he] declined the consent of a 

Magistrate, the District Judge (Gary Austin) assigned one anyway (GSA).” (Objections, Doc 

11 at 2 ¶3.) Plaintiff also alleges that the court “order[ed] the Defendants to show cause and 

respond, [and] as a result the court has created default in the prosecution of the herein civil 

rights § 1983 complaint.” (Id. at 4 ¶9.)

Plaintiff’s assertions that he declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, and that the court 

ordered the defendants in this case to “show cause and respond” are untrue. (Court Record.) 

With respect to Plaintiff’s allegations of retaliation against him at Pelican Bay State Prison, 

Plaintiff was advised in the court’s order of April 2, 2015, that the court lacks jurisdiction to 

grant relief to Plaintiff. See Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 

(9th Cir. 1985); City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); 

Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 

464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly 

convincing nature in his motion for reconsideration to induce the court to reverse its prior 

decision. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration shall be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

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

reconsideration, filed on April 27, 2015, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00928-BAM Document 12 Filed 04/29/15 Page 3 of 3