Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00329/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00329-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
S. Aceves
Defendant
Tory Watts
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TORY WATTS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

S. ACEVES, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14cv00329 DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Document 12)

Plaintiff Tory Watts (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

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

on March 10, 2014.1

Pursuant to Court order, he filed a First Amended Complaint on August 28, 2014, and a 

Second Amended Complaint on March 2, 2015. On July 17, 2015, the Court dismissed the 

Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend for failure to state a claim for which relief 

may be granted.

///

///

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on March 24, 2015.

Case 1:14-cv-00329-DLB Document 13 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 3
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

On August 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal.

A. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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) (quotations marks and citation omitted). 

The moving party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control. Id.

(quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that 

Plaintiff 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,” and 

“why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” 

B. DISCUSSION

The Magistrate Judge dismissed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint without leave to 

amend because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate an actual injury to support his access to the court 

claim. Rather, Plaintiff presented only speculation. In dismissing, the Court also noted that 

Plaintiff did not file a complete complaint, and appeared to have only responded to the 

deficiencies identified by the Court.

In his motion, Plaintiff explains to the Court that the legal book taken by Defendant 

Aceves contained the name of a witness who was going to provide exculpatory evidence on his 

behalf in an active case. Plaintiff also states that he did not understand that he had to provide a 

complete complaint when he amended, though he understands the requirement now.

Giving Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, and considering his status as a pro se litigant, the 

Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and permit him a final opportunity to 

file a complete amended complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall be due within thirty 

Case 1:14-cv-00329-DLB Document 13 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 3
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

(30) days of the date of service of this order. Plaintiff’s amended complaint will be subject to 

screening pursuant to 1915(A)(a).

Failure to follow this order will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00329-DLB Document 13 Filed 09/01/15 Page 3 of 3