Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Michael B. Williams v. H. Brar

April 30, 2012

MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
H. BRAR, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

(1) OVERRULING OBJECTION AND DISREGARDING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BY JUDGE ISHII,

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, WITH PREJUDICE, AND

(3) DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 11)

Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration and for Counsel

Plaintiff Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 18, 2011. On April 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's orders denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissing his complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff also seeks the appointment of counsel.

I. Consent

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff's objection to the resolution of his motion for injunctive relief by the undersigned is without merit and his request for reconsideration by the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii is disregarded. Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on August 25, 2011, and therefore, this action is assigned to the undersigned to resolve all pending matters pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California. (Doc. 5.) Furthermore, a party's disagreement with a court's ruling provides no basis for the withdrawal of consent. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993).

II. Reconsideration

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 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) (quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control. Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff 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," and "why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion."

"A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law," and it "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." Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

B. Discussion

The basis for Plaintiff's motion is his belief that the undersigned is without authority to rule on his motion, which was addressed above, and his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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