Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05108/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05108-12/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

JOSE DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O VIGIL,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-05108-OWW-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER ADDRESSING OPPOSITIONS AND

DENYING THEM WITH PREJUDICE TO THE

EXTENT THEY ARE CONSTRUED AS

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Docs. 89, 90, and 91)

ORDER THAT ANY FURTHER FILINGS

WHICH ARE NOT PROPER POST-JUDGMENT

MOTIONS WILL BE STRICKEN FROM THE

RECORD

Plaintiff Jose Diaz (“plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner who was proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was dismissed

on February 6, 2007. (Doc. 87.) On March 23, 2007, plaintiff filed three oppositions to the Court’s

orders issued on February 6, 2007. (Docs. 85-87, 89-91.) An “opposition” to the Court’s final

orders is not a recognized response. 

To the extent that the oppositions are construed to be motions for reconsideration, they are

without merit. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of

the district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment

on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse

party, . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, in any event “not

more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.

Case 1:03-cv-05108-OWW -LJO Document 93 Filed 03/29/07 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

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin

Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983)

(en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce

the Court to reverse its 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), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015, 108 S.Ct. 1752, 100 L.Ed.2d 214 (1988). The Ninth Circuit

has stated that “[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding

clauses.’” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986)

(quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981)). Accordingly, “the clause is

reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id. When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local

Rule 78-230(k) requires a party 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.”

Plaintiff’s oppositions are devoid of any ground entitling plaintiff to reconsideration of the

Court’s orders and are denied with prejudice. This action has been dismissed and no further filings

by plaintiff will be entertained unless they are proper post-judgment motions. Any further filings

by plaintiff that do not constitute proper post-judgment motions will be ordered stricken from the

record.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s oppositions, to the extent they are construed to be motions for

reconsideration, are DENIED, WITH PREJUDICE; and

2. Any further filings by plaintiff that do not constitute proper post-judgment motions

will be ordered stricken from the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05108-OWW -LJO Document 93 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 2