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.

Nielsen v. Lopez

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 15, 2015

LARRY NIELSEN, Plaintiff,
v.
JOSE LOPEZ, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 9) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS

ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1 & 8.) Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000).

This action was originally filed on September 8, 2014, in the District Court for the Eastern District of California - Sacramento Division, and transferred to the Eastern District of California - Fresno Division on October 15, 2014.

On October 27, 2014, the Magistrate Judge dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim and granted Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 8.)

On December 11, 2014, Plaintiff declined consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 11.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff's November 17, 2014 Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's October 27, 2014 Order dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 9.)

II. 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) ( quoting Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)). The moving party "must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control." Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103. In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party 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), 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) ( quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834, 856 (D. N.J. 1992)).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues that because he is a civil detainee and not a prisoner, the Magistrate Judge incorrectly screened his Complaint pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Plaintiff's complaint is subject to screening, and the Court may dismiss the action at any time for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Therefore, the Magistrate Judge properly exercised his authority in screening Plaintiff's Complaint and dismissing it for failure to state a claim.

Regardless, Plaintiff contends the Magistrate Judge misapplied the following legal standards in screening his claims:

Plaintiff disputes his need to demonstrate supervisory liability in the Complaint, and seeks to address the issue at the motion to dismiss or summary judgment phase of the case. As noted above, the Court has the authority to screen Plaintiff's Complaint and dismiss it for failure to state a claim against any Defendant, including on the basis that ...


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.