Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01858/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01858-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Lopez
Defendant
George Todd
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

GEORGE TODD,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. LOPEZ,

 Defendant.

1:14-cv-01858-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 8.)

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

George Todd (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action 

on November 3, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On November 24, 2014, the court issued an order requiring 

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 2.) The thirty-day time period 

passed and Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the court’s 

order. On January 13, 2015, findings and recommendations were issued, recommending that 

this case be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff was 

permitted twenty days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) 

The twenty-day time period passed, and Plaintiff did not file objections or otherwise respond to 

the findings and recommendations. On February 12, 2015, the district judge adopted the 

findings and recommendations and dismissed this case for failure to obey a court order. (Doc. 

6.)

Case 1:14-cv-01858-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 02/26/15 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 February 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed untimely objections to the findings and 

recommendations and a request for extension of time to submit an amended complaint. (Doc. 

8.) The court construes Plaintiff’s objections as a motion for reconsideration of the court’s 

order dismissing this case. 

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(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; or (6) any other reason that justifies 

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 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). Under Rule 60(b)(6), 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(k) 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 party seeking 

reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision . . . .” U.S. v. 

Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 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).

Plaintiff argues that he was unable to file his amended complaint because he was 

transferred from Kern Valley State Prison to Solano State Prison on November 26, 2014, and it 

takes two to three weeks for his mail to be forwarded to him. Plaintiff also asserts that on 

February 6, 2015, he was denied access to the law library.

Case 1:14-cv-01858-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 02/26/15 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

Plaintiff’s arguments are unpersuasive. First, according to Plaintiff’s explanation, he 

was unable to comply with the court’s order because of a delay in delivery of the mail to him. 

However, Plaintiff never informed the Court of his change of address, despite his obligation 

under Local Rule 108 to do so. Had Plaintiff followed Local Rule 108, there would not have 

been a delay. Plaintiff offers no explanation for why he did not inform the Court of his change 

of address. Second, Plaintiff’s assertion that he was denied access to the law library on 

February 6, 2015, does not explain his failure to file an amended complaint in December 2014 

or January 2015. Finally, there is no evidence before the court that Plaintiff used due diligence 

and requested an extension of time to comply with the court’s order.

Plaintiff has not presented sufficient facts that warrant reconsideration. Plaintiff’s 

motion for reconsideration will be denied.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration, filed on February 23, 2015, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01858-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 02/26/15 Page 3 of 3