Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02137/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02137-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick Blackshire
Plaintiff
Sacramento County
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 

PATRICK BLACKSHIRE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:12-cv-02137-KJM-DAD 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks to reopen his case, which he initially brought on 

August 16, 2012. ECF No. 1. He filed a first amended complaint on October 15, 2012, alleging 

various incidents of abuse, unlawful searches, and constitutional violations by “the Sacramento 

county sheriff,” “deputies,” and his probation officer. ECF No. 3. The assigned magistrate judge 

dismissed the complaint with leave to amend on October 29, 2012. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff filed a 

second amended complaint on November 9, 2012. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff alleged generally the 

same facts, but included some case citations and requested damages in the amount of 

$23,061,830. The magistrate judge recommended that the second amended complaint be 

dismissed without leave to amend, ECF No. 7, and this court adopted that recommendation in full 

on June 14, 2013, ECF No. 14. On May 26, 2015, plaintiff filed the instant motion to reopen his 

case, stating that he has been incarcerated since June 20, 2013 and therefore was unable to pursue 

an appeal. ECF No. 16. 

Case 2:12-cv-02137-KJM-DAD Document 17 Filed 07/14/15 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

 The court construes plaintiff’s motion to reopen his case as a motion for 

reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure § 60(b).1 The court has discretion to 

reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); 

United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir. 1992). Motions for 

reconsideration are committed to the discretion of the trial court. 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 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). “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), 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. United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. 

Cal. 2001) (citation omitted). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) 

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.” 

L.R. 230(j). 

///// 

///// 

///// 

///// 

///// 

///// 

 1 If the court were to construe the motion as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), the motion would have to be denied because such a motion 

must be made within ten days of the entry of judgment. Here, plaintiff moves almost two years 

after the final judgment was entered. 

Case 2:12-cv-02137-KJM-DAD Document 17 Filed 07/14/15 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

 Plaintiff’s motion is a one-page handwritten document stating that he has been 

unable to pursue his case, and requests that the court reopen it “to bring fair and just closure . . . .” 

ECF No. 16. He does not set forth any new facts or evidence, or change in law, justifying 

reconsideration of the court’s dismissal of his action. Without any basis for reconsidering of that 

order, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 14, 2015. 

Case 2:12-cv-02137-KJM-DAD Document 17 Filed 07/14/15 Page 3 of 3