Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00309/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00309-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK RAYMOND PHELPS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00309-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE SUPPLEMENT TO FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

 (ECF No. 21)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Mark Phelps, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 4, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) 

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim but 

gave leave to amend. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (ECF 

No. 14.) The Court screened the First Amended Complaint and issued Findings and 

Recommendations to dismiss the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim (ECF 

No. 15.). Plaintiff then filed a supplement to his First Amended Complaint which was 

stricken. (ECF Nos. 16 & 17.) Plaintiff now seeks reversal of the Court’s order striking 

his supplement and seeks leave to file it. (ECF No. 17 & 21.)

Case 1:13-cv-00309-LJO-MJS Document 22 Filed 08/17/15 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

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where 

extraordinary circumstances’” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008)

(quoting Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control.” 

Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103. In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 

230(j) requires a party 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 . . . 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), 

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) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 

834, 856 (D. N.J. 1992)).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues that the supplement demonstrates he complied with the California 

Tort Claims Act and would therefore allow the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

over his state law claims even if all of the federal law claims are dismissed.

Plaintiff has not presented evidence or legal justification for the reversal of the 

Court’s prior order striking his supplement. Even if the Court considered Plaintiff’s 

supplement in screening his First Amended Complaint, it would not change the Court’s 

Case 1:13-cv-00309-LJO-MJS Document 22 Filed 08/17/15 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

ruling on his state law claims. The Court did not dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims in his 

First Amended Complaint for failure to comply with the California Tort Claims Act. 

Rather, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them because 

Plaintiff failed to state a viable federal claim. (ECF No. 15.) 

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the supplement to his 

First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21) is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00309-LJO-MJS Document 22 Filed 08/17/15 Page 3 of 3