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.

Larry D. Reynolds v. Sacramento County Jail

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


July 3, 2012

LARRY D. REYNOLDS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff filed an action in 1990, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's amended complaint was dismissed and this action was closed on July 5, 1991.

On February 14, 2011, plaintiff moved to reopen the case, alleging that his suit had floundered due to plaintiff's mental health and his incarceration in federal and Arizona state prisons. See Doc. No. 21. On March 9, 2011, this court denied the motion to reopen, finding that plaintiff had failed to establish exceptional circumstances to warrant reopening under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). See Doc. No. 22.

On May 21, 2012, plaintiff filed a one-page motion to amend his complaint, alleging that this court has wrongfully held him to a higher standard, that he is presently committed in a federal prison, and that he has been partially mentally and emotionally handicapped since age 14. See Doc. No. 23.

To the extent plaintiff seeks to reopen this case in order to amend his complaint, the court denies the motion for the reasons given in its March 9, 2011 order. Plaintiff does not allege that circumstances have changed since March 9, 2011, and, in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, plaintiff has not established that his case should be reopened under Rule 60(b)(6).

To the extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court's March 9, 2011 order, his request is denied because plaintiff fails to brief the "new or different facts or circumstances [which] were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion." See Local Rule 230(j).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to amend (Doc. No. 23) is denied.

20120703

© 1992-2012 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.