Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00358/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00358-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Omar Miramontes Lopez
Plaintiff
Madera County Department of Corrections
Defendant

Document Text:

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

OMAR MIRAMONTES LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00358 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[ECF No. 34]

Plaintiff Omar Miramontez Lopez (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro 

se in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August 26, 2010. 

On January 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed an unsigned Second Amended Complaint. On March 11, 2015, 

the Court struck the Second Amended Complaint and granted Plaintiff thirty (30) days to file a 

signed amended complaint. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to file an amended complaint would 

result in dismissal of the action for failure to obey a court order. More than thirty days passed and 

Plaintiff failed to comply or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. Accordingly, the complaint was 

dismissed on April 22, 2015.

On May 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration.

DISCUSSION

 Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake, inadvertence, 

surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could 

Case 1:13-cv-00358-DLB Document 35 Filed 05/14/15 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

not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether 

previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) 

the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). 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 quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both 

injury and circumstances beyond his control....” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff 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 district 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) (internal quotations 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 1111, 1131 (E.D.Cal.2001). 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 Kern–Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 

1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

Here, Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider the order dismissing the action because of 

mental illness. In support of his claim, Plaintiff submits as exhibits Patient Discharge Instructions 

from Kaweah Delta Hospital. It appears from the exhibits that Plaintiff was admitted to Kaweah 

Delta Hospital on February 20, 2015, and discharged on February 23, 2015. It also appears Plaintiff 

was given several prescriptions for medication. Beyond this, however, there is no showing of good 

cause for reconsideration. Based on the above, Plaintiff was admitted and discharged for a four-day 

period in February. This has no relevance to the Court’s order of March 11, 2015, wherein Plaintiff 

was directed to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any

Case 1:13-cv-00358-DLB Document 35 Filed 05/14/15 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

extraordinary circumstances sufficient to justify reconsideration. 

ORDER

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

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00358-DLB Document 35 Filed 05/14/15 Page 3 of 3