Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gray v. Woodford

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 28, 2006

RICKY GRAY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JEANNE WOODFORD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. # 74]

Plaintiff Ricky Gray ("Plaintiff" or "Gray"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action for violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 29, 2006 Plaintiff filed a motion directing Defendants to allow Plaintiff to correspond with inmates from other prisons. [Doc. # 58]. The motion was denied as vague and failing to establish the relevance of the evidence sought. [Doc. # 68]. On October 19, 2006 the chambers received Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the previous order pursuant to Rule 60(b) ("the motion"). [Doc. # 74]. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

The moving party under Rule 60(b) may be entitled to relief from a previous order for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; ... (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, discharged, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Plaintiff fails to show any of the above grounds for reconsideration of the previous Order. Gray simply reargues his previous motion. He lists several inmates from other prisons who, he believes, would provide affidavits in support of his case. Plaintiff again fails to describe the information to be supplied through the affidavits or to explain its relevance. Therefore his motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20061128

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.