Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00590/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00590-3/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

DAVID CREW,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION,

Defendant.

1:16-cv-00590-LJO-BAM (PC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF MOTION TO 

COMPEL DISCOVERY EVIDENCE AS 

PREMATURE

(Doc. 20)

Plaintiff David Crew (“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 August 22, 2016, Plaintiff 

filed a motion to compel his health information that supports his allegations. (Doc. 17.) On 

August 24, 2016, the Magistrate Judge to whom this matter was referred denied that motion, 

without prejudice, as premature. (Doc. 18.) The Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff’s complaint, 

had recently been dismissed for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend, and thus no 

defendants had been served and discovery had not yet been opened. (Id. at 2.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion entitled, “Motion to Compel Discovery 

Evidence ‘Premature,’” filed September 12, 2016. (Doc. 20.) Plaintiff states that he requests the 

undersigned to reconsider his motion on the grounds that he has to depend on the prison officials 

Case 1:16-cv-00590-LJO-BAM Document 21 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 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 2

to provide him with information concerning this matter, and thus he relies on them for any 

information and legal documents or access to legal materials. The Court construes this motion as 

a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(6).

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.” L.R. 230(j). “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).

Plaintiff has not presented sufficient grounds for reconsideration of the order denying his 

motion to compel discovery. As the Magistrate Judge correctly found, this case has not entered 

the discovery stage. Since that order was issued, Plaintiff has filed a first amended complaint, 

which will be screened in due course. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the order 

denying his motion to compel discovery, (ECF No. 20), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00590-LJO-BAM Document 21 Filed 09/16/16 Page 2 of 2