Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01768/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01768-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lewis
Defendant
Ricardo Martinez
Plaintiff
C. Pfeiffer
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-01768-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. No. 25)

Plaintiff Ricardo Martinez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

Before the court is plaintiff’s April 20, 2020 request for reconsideration1of the 

undersigned’s April 9, 2020 order adopting in full the assigned magistrate judge’s January 9, 

2020 findings and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 13, 22, 25.) In its April 9, 2020 order, the court 

adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations and dismissed this action as duplicative. (Doc. 

No. 22.) 

/////

 

1

 The court notes that plaintiff’s filing was styled as “[o]bjections” to the magistrate judge’s 

findings and recommendations but requested that the court to “reopen” this action. The court will 

therefore construe this pending motion as a request for reconsideration under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 60(b).

Case 1:19-cv-01768-DAD-SAB Document 26 Filed 04/28/20 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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 

district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 

for the following reasons: 

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, 

could 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;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is 

based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or 

applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, 

typically “not more than one year after the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Id. 

“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,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or 

present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 

litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

In his request for reconsideration, plaintiff notes that the other cases that this action is 

duplicative of have now all been dismissed and argues that the court should therefore re-open this 

case to allow him to pursue the vindication of his rights. (Doc. No. 25 at 1.) In its April 9, 2020 

order dismissing this action, the court noted that this case is duplicative of Martinez v. Standon, 

No. 1:19-cv-00845-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2019) (dismissed for failure to state a 

claim) and Martinez v. Lewis, No. 1:19-cv-00812-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019)

(same). Plaintiff, however, has provided the court with no explanation as to how re-opening this 

case would lead to a different outcome than in Standon or Lewis, two duplicative cases that were 

Case 1:19-cv-01768-DAD-SAB Document 26 Filed 04/28/20 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

dismissed for failures to state a cognizable claim or why, as a matter of law, he should be 

permitted to pursue repetitive duplicative action in the hope of obtaining some different ruling. 

Moreover, plaintiff fails to present any of the enumerated grounds for reconsideration provided 

for by Rule 60(b).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for reconsideration (Doc. No. 25) is denied. No further 

orders will issue in this closed case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01768-DAD-SAB Document 26 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 3