United States District Court, S.D. California
MANUEL M. SOARES, CDCR # F-39579, Plaintiff,
DANIEL PARAMO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [ECF NO.
Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge United States District
M. Soares (“Plaintiff”), is a prisoner currently
incarcerated at the California Health Care Facility
(“CHCF”) in Stockton, California, and is
proceeding pro se and in this civil action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
are all correctional and mental health care officials
employed at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility
(“RJD”) where Plaintiff was incarcerated in
November 2012. See ECF No. 1 at 1-2, 4-5.
25, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to
Join/Amend in order to add additional parties and claims, and
denied his Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice as
premature (ECF No. 61). Instead of amending, however,
Plaintiff filed a Motion to withdraw his previously filed
Motion to Join/Amend (ECF No. 67). The Court denied
Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw on June 16, 2016 as
moot, but also construed it as Plaintiff’s Notice of
Intent to stand on his previous pleadings. (ECF No. 68).
has since filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this
Court’s May 25, 2016 Order-at least to the extent it
denied his Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 76).
Essentially, Plaintiff asks the Court to again rule on the
Motion for Summary Judgment it has already denied as moot,
arguing that it is no longer premature because the period for
fact discovery in his case has since closed.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
Standard of Review
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for
motions for reconsideration. However, a motion requesting
reconsideration of a matter previously decided may be
construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule
59(e) or Rule 60(b). See Osterneck v. Ernst &
Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead
Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir.
1994). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed “no later than
28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
59(e). Because Plaintiff’s current Motion was filed
after the 28 days permitted by Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), the Court
will consider his request to arise under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60.
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(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the
following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due
diligence could not have been discovered before the
court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6)
any other reason justifying relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b);
School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th
the application of Rule 60(b) is committed to the discretion
of the district courts . . ., as a general matter, Rule 60(b)
is remedial in nature and must be liberally applied.”
TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691,
695-96 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis
omitted). Nevertheless, Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary
relief and may be invoked only upon a showing of
“exceptional circumstances.” Engleson v.
Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.
does not seek reconsideration based on mistake, inadvertence,
surprise or neglect. He does not present any newly discovered
evidence, point to fraud, argue that the Court’s May
25, 2016 Order is void, that any judgment has been satisfied,
or point to any “other reason” that might justify
reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6).
noted above, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment without prejudice as premature because it
was premature given his request for leave to amend,
and the fact that the period for discovery had yet to close.
See ECF No. 61 at 10. In fact, the period for
discovery in this case has still yet to
close-Plaintiff’s recently filed Motion to Quash a
subpoena is still pending (ECF No. 70), ...