IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 13, 2010
MALIK JONES, #K-09065, PLAINTIFF,
D. VANDERVILLE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: David Alan Ezra United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On December 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 24) of this Court's Order denying Plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Kevin Chang's Orders (Doc. # 22). After reviewing the supporting memorandum and record the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.
Malik Jones, ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, and In Forma Pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 1, 2008, Plaintiff filed his complaint alleging civil rights violations against defendants. (Doc. # 1.) This action was referred to a U.S. Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) of the Federal Magistrates Act of 1968 and Local Rule 72-302.
On October 9, 2009, Magistrate Chang issued an order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), which requires that complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against employees of a governmental entity be screened. (Doc. # 18.)
On October 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed a request entitled "Motion Requesting the Court to Return Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Exhibits so that He will be Able to Amend it." Plaintiff's motion requested that the Court return to Plaintiff his original complaint and exhibits and not commence the 30 day time period for amendment until Plaintiff received such documents. The Court denied both of these motions. (Doc. # 20.)
On October 9, 2009, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Magistrate's orders dismissing Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend and denying his request for the return of his complaint and exhibits. (Doc. # 21.) On December 1, 2009, this Court denied Plaintiff's Objections and dismissed Plaintiff's case with prejudice. ("Order," Doc. # 22.)
On December 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration of this Court's Order. (Doc. # 24.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The disposition of a motion for reconsideration is within the discretion of the district court. Plotkin v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., 688 F.2d 1291, 1292 (9th Cir. 1982); Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). This rule derives from the compelling interest in the finality of judgments, which should not be lightly disregarded. Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983).
Motions for reconsideration are brought pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is (1) presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error, or (3) if there is an intervening change in the controlling law. 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). In addition, a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration "may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation." Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that the court may grant relief from an order or judgment for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, 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.
Plaintiff's instant motion argues that he is entitled to reconsideration of the Court's Order because: 1) Plaintiff was allegedly unlawfully denied access to the prison law library and therefore could not amend his complaint; and 2) Plaintiff was allegedly denied access to a wheelchair necessary for Plaintiff to access the prison law library and amend his complaint. (Mot. at 1-2.) Plaintiff's arguments are presented for the first time in the instant motion. A motion for reconsideration "may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation." See Kona Enterprises, Inc., 229 F.3d at 890. The Court finds no justification for Plaintiff's failure to raise these arguments in his original objection.
Moreover, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration fails to address any newly discovered evidence, clear error in the law, or intervening change in the controlling law. Therefore, The Court does not find, and Plaintiff has failed to raise, any reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.