Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01594/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01594-4/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

CONNOR ALBERT DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1594-MCE-EFB

ORDER

On March 30, 2016 the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants pursuant 

to its Order adopting the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations and 

dismissing the case with prejudice. ECF Nos. 28, 29. Presently before the Court is 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Re-Open Case (“Motion”). ECF No. 30. The Court construes 

Plaintiff’s Motion as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

60(b) and it is hereby DENIED. 

A motion for reconsideration is properly brought pursuant to either Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Such a motion is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion if filed within twenty-eight days of entry 

of judgment, but as a Rule 60(b) motion if filed more than twenty-eight days after 

judgment is entered. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 

Case 2:15-cv-01594-MCE-EFB Document 31 Filed 09/02/16 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

F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). A motion may be construed under Rule 59 or Rule 60

even though it is not labeled as such, or not labeled at all. Taylor, 871 F.2d at 805. 

Since Plaintiff’s Motion was filed more than twenty-eight days from the entry of judgment

and seeks relief from a final judgment, the Court will treat it as a motion under Rule 

60(b).

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration of a final judgment or any order where 

one of more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have 

been discovered within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment; (3) fraud, 

misrepresentation, or misconduct of an opposing party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) 

satisfaction of the judgment; and (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b). A motion for reconsideration on any of these grounds must be brought within a 

reasonable time, and no later than one year, of the entry of the judgment or the order 

being challenged. Id. Additionally, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party filing a motion for 

reconsideration 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.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(j). 

A court should be loathe to revisit its own decisions unless extraordinary 

circumstances show that its prior decision was clearly erroneous. Christianson v. Colt 

Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988). This principle is embodied in the law 

of the case doctrine, under which “a court is generally precluded from reconsidering an 

issue that has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical 

case.” United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Thomas 

v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir. 1993)). Mere dissatisfaction with the court's order, 

or belief that the court is wrong in its decision, is not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b). 

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Accordingly, a district court may properly deny a motion for reconsideration that simply 

reiterates an argument already presented by the petitioner. Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 

Case 2:15-cv-01594-MCE-EFB Document 31 Filed 09/02/16 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

252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995). The decision to grant or deny a motion for relief from judgment 

pursuant is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. Turner v. Burlington 

N. Santa Fe R.R., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003); Harman v. Harper, 7 F.3d 1455, 

1458 (9th Cir. 1993).

Here, Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden under Rule 60(b). Specifically, 

Plaintiff’s Motion argues that if he had appointed counsel, he would be able to plead his 

case in a way that would avoid dismissal. Plaintiff’s Motion, however, fails to address 

any of Rule 60(b)’s factors justifying relief from a final judgment. Furthermore, it is not 

apparent that Plaintiff ever requested that counsel be appointed for him before his case 

was dismissed. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 30) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-01594-MCE-EFB Document 31 Filed 09/02/16 Page 3 of 3