Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00860/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00860-4/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

ALFONSO HALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. SMITH, et. al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00860-BAM-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF NO. 19)

Plaintiff Alfonso Hall is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s objection, which the Court 

construes as a motion for reconsideration, of the June 1, 2016, order denying Plaintiff’s motion 

for the appointment of counsel and motion for class certification. (ECF No. 18.) 

I. Relevant Procedural History

On June 1, 2016, an order was entered, denying Plaintiff’s motion to certify this action as 

a class action and denying Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel to represent the 

potential class. On June 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the order denying his request to 

certify this action as a class action and denying his request for counsel. (ECF No. 19.) The 

Court construes Plaintiff’s objections as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 60. 

II. Legal Standard

The motion for reconsideration is governed by Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and Rule 230 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern 

Case 1:15-cv-00860-LJO-BAM Document 22 Filed 09/12/16 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

District of California. 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 manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . . . 

exist.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

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

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local 

Rule 230(j) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed 

to 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 controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 

v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation 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 111, 1131 (E.D. 

Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts of law of such a strongly convincing nature 

to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of 

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 646, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on 

other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 

III. Analysis

Plaintiff argues that in the order denying his requests, the Court erroneously noted that 

this action proceeds on a claim of excessive force against a single defendant, when in fact he is 

proceeding on claims of excessive force, failure to protect, and unconstitutional conditions of 

confinement against four defendants. On December 16, 2015, an order was entered, finding that 

the complaint stated a claim for relief against Defendant Smith for excessive force, but failed to 

state any other claims for relief. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff filed a first, then a second amended 

complaint, which is awaiting screening by the Court. Assuming Plaintiff does state a claim 

against the remaining Defendants on all of his claims, the Court’s analysis would not change. 

Case 1:15-cv-00860-LJO-BAM Document 22 Filed 09/12/16 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

The Court denied the appointment of class counsel on the ground that this action does not 

involve allegations or claims that would ordinarily be eligible for class certification pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). Plaintiff, a non-attorney, may bring his own claims, but 

he may not represent others. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff has not met the high burden of coming forward with evidence of law or facts of 

such a strongly convincing nature as to induce the Court to reverse the order denying his request 

for class certification and the appointment of class counsel. The allegations of the complaint

indicate a single instance of excessive force and placement in a management cell. Plaintiff’s 

requests for class certification and appointment of class counsel were properly denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of 

the June 1, 2016, order denying his requests for class certification and appointment of class 

counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00860-LJO-BAM Document 22 Filed 09/12/16 Page 3 of 3