Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01008/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01008-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City Of Fresno
Defendant
Brian Pierce
Defendant
Police Department
Defendant
Stacey A. Sango
Plaintiff

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STACEY A. SANGO, 

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF FRESNO, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:06-cv-01008 OWW-WMW- PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 20 )

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

302. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the February 10, 2009,

order adopting the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and dismissing this

action without prejudice to the filing of an application for a writ of habeas corpus.

 Plaintiff initiated this action by the filing of a civil complaint. Plaintiff named as

defendants in the complaint the City of Fresno, the Fresno Police Department and Fresno Police

Officer Brian Pierce. Plaintiff’s claim in the complaint is that during his criminal process he

filed a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence. Plaintiff specifically alleged that he was

imprisoned based upon false evidence. 

In the findings and recommendations, the Magistrate Judge found that the facts alleged

challenged the underlying validity of Plaintiff’s conviction. Specifically, Plaintiff challenged the

Case 1:06-cv-01008-OWW -WMW Document 22 Filed 07/01/10 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

validity of his arrest. When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or

raises a constitutional challenge which could entitle him to earlier release, his sole federal

remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1983); Young v. Kenny,

907 F.2d 874 (9 Cir. 1990). The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff clearly alleged facts th

which, if true, challenged the legality of his custody. Such a claim should be brought as an

application for a writ of habeas corpus. 

Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The District Court, taking

into account Plaintiff’s objections, adopted the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate

Judge and dismissed this action without prejudice to the filing of an application for writ of

habeas corpus. 

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

district court. The rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment

on the grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an

adverse party, . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, in

any event, “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or

taken.” Id.

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick

Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9 Cir. th

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 e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other

grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9 Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988). The Ninth Circuit has th

held that “[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding

clauses.’” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9 Cir. th

1986), quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9 Cir. 1981). Accordingly, “the th

2

Case 1:06-cv-01008-OWW -WMW Document 22 Filed 07/01/10 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

clause is reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id.

In his document titled as a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff cites no new facts, new

law, mistake, fraud, or other extraordinary circumstances that would entitle Plaintiff to

reconsideration. See Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 60(b); Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 72(a); Local Rule 230(j). As such,

Plaintiff is not entitled to reconsideration. 

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

the December 7, 2009, order dismissing this action is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:06-cv-01008-OWW -WMW Document 22 Filed 07/01/10 Page 3 of 3