Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01250/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01250-5/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY EARL EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01250-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER ADDRESSING OBJECTION AND

DENYING IT WITH PREJUDICE TO THE

EXTENT IT IS CONSTRUED AS A MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 21)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

REINSTATEMENT OF MOTIONS, WITH

PREJUDICE

(Doc. 23)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SEND PLAINTIFF A COPY OF THE DOCKET

IN THIS ACTION

Plaintiff Johnny Earl Evans (“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 March 8, 2007, the Magistrate

Judge dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint, with leave to amend, and on March 16, 2007, the

Magistrate Judge denied plaintiff’s motions for recusal and transfer of this case, and recommended

that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied. (Docs. 12, 17, and 18.) Plaintiff

filed a second amended complaint on March 22, 2007. (Doc. 20.) On March 26, 2007, plaintiff filed

an objection to the order dismissing his amended complaint with leave to amend, and a motion

seeking to reinstate his motions for recusal, to transfer this case, and for preliminary injunctive relief.

(Docs. 21 and 23.) 

Case 1:06-cv-01250-ALA Document 24 Filed 03/30/07 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

An “objection” to the Magistrate Judge’s order is not a recognized response, as it was an

order, not a findings and recommendations. To the extent that the objection is construed to be a

motion for reconsideration, it is without merit. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the

reconsideration of final orders of the district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a

party from a final order or judgment on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party, . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from

the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must be made

within a reasonable time, in any event “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or

proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.

Motionsto reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin

Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983)

(en banc). 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 e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634

F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th

Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015, 108 S.Ct. 1752, 100 L.Ed.2d 214 (1988). The Ninth Circuit

has stated that “[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding

clauses.’” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986)

(quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981)). Accordingly, “the clause is

reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id. When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local

Rule 78-230(k) 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’s disagreement with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of the law is unpersuasive.

Plaintiff’s objection is devoid of any ground entitling plaintiff to reconsideration of the Magistrate

Judge’s order and is denied with prejudice. 

Turning to plaintiff’s motion for reinstatement of his motions for recusal, to transfer this case,

and for preliminary injunctive relief, at the time plaintiff filed the motion, he was under the mistaken

belief that the motions had not been filed by the Clerk’s Office. The motions were filed on March

Case 1:06-cv-01250-ALA Document 24 Filed 03/30/07 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

13, 2007, and addressed by the Magistrate Judge in an order and a finding and recommendation filed

on March 16, 2007. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the motions is without merit and is

denied, with prejudice. The Court will direct the Clerk’s Office to provide plaintiff with a courtesy

copy of the docket in this action.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s objection, to the extent it is construed to be a motion for reconsideration,

is DENIED, WITH PREJUDICE;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate his motions for recusal, to transfer this case, and for

preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED, WITH PREJUDICE; and

3. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a copy of the docket in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01250-ALA Document 24 Filed 03/30/07 Page 3 of 3