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.

Ogundimo v. Steadfast Property & Development

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 8, 2009

CARLOTTA OGUNDIMO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
STEADFAST PROPERTY & DEVELOPMENT, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DEEMING PLAINTIFF'S PLEADING TO BE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE STRIKING OF PLAINTIFF'S PURPORTED AMENDED COMPLAINT

(DOCS. 22, 20)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 22)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action for damages and other relief concerning alleged civil rights violations. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's pleading, filed on April 24, 2009 (Doc. 22), in reference to the order of the undersigned Magistrate Judge, filed on April 13, 2009, striking Plaintiff's purported amended complaint (Doc. 20). In this pleading, Plaintiff asserts that the Court cannot correct her own corrections of her complaint.

The Court CONSTRUES Plaintiff's pleading as a request for reconsideration of the portion of the Court's order that directed the striking of the purported amended complaint.

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 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 (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, 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 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015, 108 S.Ct. 1752, 100 L.Ed.2d 214 (1988). The Ninth Circuit has stated 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 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981)). Accordingly, "the clause is reserved for 'extraordinary circumstances.'" Id. When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 78-230(k) 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...."

Here, Plaintiff has failed to make the showing required on Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff attempted to amend the complaint by filing a copy of the Court's screening order that reflected the insertion of some handwritten sentences; Plaintiff did not file a completely new complaint, which is required by the pertinent rules. An amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and generally must be "complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading," Local Rule 15-220. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not shown any grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration.

Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's order striking Plaintiff's purported amended complaint IS DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090508

© 1992-2009 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.