Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00289/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00289-14/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roberto Herrera
Plaintiff
Rouch
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

ROBERTO HERRERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROUCH,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF NO. 43)

Plaintiff Roberto Herrera is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

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

proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint which alleges Defendant Rouch exhibited 

deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical need. (ECF No. 18.)

On September 20, 2013 and October 17, 2013 Plaintiff filed motions seeking a 

preliminary injunction. (ECF Nos. 21 and 25.) Plaintiff claimed he suffers from chronic 

pain and has been denied effective medication and thermal underwear needed for pain 

relief. He requested a court order directing the Defendant to resolve Plaintiff’s medical 

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 99 Filed 10/29/14 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

issues. (Id.) The Court issued findings and recommendations recommending that 

Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief be denied, without prejudice. (ECF No. 

29.) Plaintiff filed objections on January 6, 2014 and the findings and recommendations 

were adopted on February 13, 2014. (ECF Nos. 35 and 39.)

On February 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the 

Court’s order denying his motions for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 43.) 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 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(j) 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 . . . 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).

Plaintiff urges the Court to reconsider its ruling without providing a compelling 

reason to do so. The motion for reconsideration sets out the basic facts underlying 

Plaintiff’s claim and makes clear that Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s conclusion. 

However, Plaintiff’s has not shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief. He 

has not met the burden imposed on a party moving for reconsideration. Marlyn 

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 99 Filed 10/29/14 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

Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration 

(ECF No. 43) is DENIED, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 99 Filed 10/29/14 Page 3 of 3