UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 27, 2011
OSUNA; HOGAN; DOYL; DOMINGO URIBE, JR.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia U.S. District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
[ECF No. 6]
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion to Amend" in which he is "requesting this Court to reconsider Plaintiff's Complaint." See Pl.'s Mot. at 1. Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff's request as a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's March 21, 2011 Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") and sua sponte dismissing his Complaint for failing to state a claim. See Mar. 21, 2011 Order at 1.
Procedural History On February 18, 2011, and while incarcerated at the California Men's Colony - East, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) & § 1915A(b). See Mar. 21, 2011 Order at 6-7. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Id. Instead of filing an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed the Motion that is currently before this Court.
Plaintiff's Motion A. Standard of Review Under Rule 60, a motion for "relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding" may be filed within a "reasonable time," but usually must be filed "no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding." FED.R.CIV.P. 60(c). Reconsideration under Rule 60 may be granted in the case of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) fraud; or if (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) for any other reason justifying relief. FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b).
B. Plaintiff's Arguments
Here, Plaintiff offers no argument in support of his request for the Court to "reconsider Plaintiff's Complaint." Pl.'s Mot. at 1. The only argument that the Court can surmise from Plaintiff's moving papers is his statement that "Defendants in the above matter conduct was committed while acting under color of state law and their conduct violated a right secured by the constitutional and laws of the United States." Id.
In the Court's Order dated March 21st, the Court found a number of deficiencies in Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff seems to merely disagree with the Court's Order but offers not basis for his disagreement. A motion for reconsideration cannot be granted merely because Plaintiff is unhappy with the judgment, frustrated by the Court's application of the facts to binding precedent or because he disagrees with the ultimate decision. See 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller Federal Practice & Procedure 2d § 2858 (Supp. 2007) (citing Edwards v. Velvac, Inc., 19 F.R.D. 504, 507 (D. Wis. 1956)). Thus, without more, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to show that the Court rendered a "manifestly unjust decision," and has further failed to identify any intervening changes in controlling law which justify reconsideration of the Court's Order. McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255; School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263.
Conclusion and Order Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 6] is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.