Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00273/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00273-23/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

Plaintiff Robert Bishop is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On May 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s April 20, 2016, 

order granting Defendants’ second motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 123.) 

I.

DISCUSSION

Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 

722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. 

Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature 

to induce the court to reverse a 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). 

Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies 

relief. Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent injustice and is to be 

ROBERT BISHOP,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RAUL LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00273-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S APRIL 20, 

2016, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

SECOND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

[ECF No. 123]

Case 1:15-cv-00273-LJO-SAB Document 126 Filed 05/09/16 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

utilized only where extraordinary exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). The 

moving party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control. Harvest v. Castro, 

531 F.3d at 749. 

On May 4, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ second motion for a protective order staying 

all discovery pending a ruling on the exhaustion-based motion for summary judgment. The Court 

found that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for a further extension of the discovery deadline 

in order to oppose Defendants’ pending motion, and “[a]dditional discovery would amount to an abuse 

of the discovery process and is not proportional to the needs of this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).” 

(ECF No. 121, Order at 8:22-23.) 

Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration and argues he “was unaware and not instructed that he 

required leave of the court to continue the discovery process for the exhaustion-based discovery for his 

opposition, nor was a deadline provided.” (ECF No. 123, Mot. at 1.) Plaintiff contends the 

outstanding discovery requests served on Defendants are relevant to exhaustion of the administrative 

remedies. (Id.) Plaintiff merely contends that he is in need of further discovery, yet he fails to 

demonstrate how such information is necessary and determinative of the pending motion for summary 

judgment. As stated in the Court’s April 20, 2016, order:

The Court did not permit Plaintiff to propound further discovery, as he has now done by 

propounding seventy-eight additional requests for admissions on Defendant Jones, eighty-four 

additional requests for admissions on Defendant Cano, and a fourth request for production of 

documents. As to these requests, Plaintiff has not identified any fact that discovery would 

reveal other than the need for responses to his requests for admissions and documentation. 

Indeed, it is particularly questionable as to why Plaintiff is in need of responses to admissions 

in order to oppose Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff has he explained why any specific, but as yet 

unobtained facts, would preclude summary judgment, or how a further continuance would 

allow Plaintiff to produce evidence that would establish a material factual issue sufficient to 

preclude summary judgment. Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100-

1101 (9th Cir. 2006). 

(ECF No. 121, Order at 8:7-17.) Plaintiff fails to present sufficient justification to demonstrate that 

the April 20, 2016, order granting Defendants’ second motion for a protective order was clearly 

erroneous or contrary to law. As discussed above, Plaintiff’s desire to continue to propound discovery 

to oppose the pending exhaustion-related motion for summary judgment is not warranted and 

Case 1:15-cv-00273-LJO-SAB Document 126 Filed 05/09/16 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

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration shall be denied. As stated in the Court’s April 20, 2016, 

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, if any, is due by June 3, 2016. 

(ECF No. 121, Order at 9:20-21.) 

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s April 

20, 2016, order granting Defendants’ second motion for a protective order is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00273-LJO-SAB Document 126 Filed 05/09/16 Page 3 of 3