The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS
Plaintiff Joseph R. Pulliam ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, filed December February 2, 2009, against Defendants Lozano and Mason (jointly, "Defendants") for violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 23.)
On March 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for a subpoena duces tecum to be issued to the Warden of Kern Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 55.) On September 14, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion in part, and ordered service of Plaintiff's subpoena duces tecum. (ECF No. 68 & 71.) Plaintiff has since filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order on Plaintiff's motion for a subpoena duces tecum, to extend the discovery deadline, and to alter the limit of interrogatories. (ECF No. 70.) Defendants have not filed an opposition to this motion.
Plaintiff also filed a notice regarding the Warden of Kern Valley State Prison's failure to comply with the subpoena duces tecum issued to him. (ECF No. 72.) Defendants have filed a response to this notice. (ECF No. 73.)
These motions and notice are now before the Court.
I. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff asks that the Court reconsider its decision on Plaintiff's motion for a subpoena duces tecum. (Mot., ECF No. 70 at 3-4.) Plaintiff believes that the Court was wrong to deny five of the document requests in his motion for a subpoena duces tecum. (Mot. at 4.) The denied requests relate to Defendants' personnel records. (ECF No. 55 at 5-6.) In its order on Plaintiff's motion for a subpoena duces tecum, the Court found that these requests were not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. (ECF No. 68 at 2.)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 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). 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 motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law," Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted), and "[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and recapitulation . . . " of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).
Plaintiff has provided no basis for reconsideration, and has not shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief, and has therefore not met his burden as the party moving for reconsideration. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 70) is ...