United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [ECF NO. 38]
Lawrence J. O’Neill UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE.
Reginald Ray York (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner
proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 12132 (Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”)) on August 6, 2014.
January 21, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for an order
requiring Plaintiff to post security before the matter
proceeded. Local Rule 151(b); Cal. Civ. Proc. § 391.1.
On March 11, 2016, Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck denied
Defendants’ motion. On March 25, 2016, Defendants filed
a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff filed an opposition
on April 15, 2016, and Defendants filed a reply to the
opposition on April 22, 2016.
4, 2016, Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder issued Findings
and Recommendation that recommended Defendants’ motion
for reconsideration be granted and the action be dismissed
with prejudice for lack of standing. On June 8, 2016, the
undersigned conducted a de novo review of the case and
adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full. The case was
dismissed and judgment was entered.
30, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for
reconsideration. Defendants did not file an opposition.
60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for
“(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously
called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). 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) (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.”
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, ” 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). To succeed, a party must set forth facts
or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to
reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist.
v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal.
1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other
grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
Plaintiff complains that Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck
issued the initial order denying Defendants’ motion for
Plaintiff to post security. Thereafter, Defendants filed a
motion for reconsideration and Magistrate Judge Sandra M.
Snyder issued a Findings and Recommendation which recommended
the motion be granted. Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge
Beck was assigned to the case and Plaintiff was never
informed that the case had been reassigned to Magistrate
Judge Snyder. In fact, the case was not reassigned to
Magistrate Judge Snyder. Magistrate Judge Beck was on an
extended leave of absence and Magistrate Judge Snyder
temporarily assisted the Court with Magistrate Judge
Beck’s cases. Regardless, the issue of which magistrate
judge issued the Findings and Recommendation is
inconsequential since the undersigned conducted a de
novo review of the entire case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and then granted the Defendants’
motion for reconsideration thereby dismissing the case.
also argues that the Court erred by dismissing the entire
case along with his claims for damages when it determined
that his claim for injunctive relief had become moot. As
correctly stated in the Findings and Recommendation, only
injunctive relief is available to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is
proceeding on his Second Amended Complaint against Defendants
in their official capacities. (ECF No. 21 at 1.) Since
Plaintiff is suing Defendants in their official capacities,
he is not entitled to monetary damages. Aholelei v. Dept.
of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages
in federal court against a state, its agencies, and state
officials in their official capacities.”). Therefore,
the Court did not commit clear error in dismissing the case.
Plaintiff complains that the Court did not consider his
objections prior to issuing the order dismissing the case.
The Findings and Recommendation was issued May 4, 2016, and
objections were due on June 3, 2016. The undersigned issued
the order dismissing the case on June 8, 2016.
Plaintiff’s objections were not received by the Court
until June 10, 2016. The proof of service is dated May 30,
2016, so under the mailbox rule, the objections were timely.
The Court has reviewed the objections and finds no reason to
modify the order adopting the Findings and Recommendation.
Plaintiff seeks an order directing Kern Valley State Prison
to undo its decision to deactivate 240 cells which he states
runs afoul of the Administrative Procedures Act. Plaintiff
further complains that KVSP reactivated 240 cells in
violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v.
Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011); that KVSP failed to gain
approval from the Office of Administrative Law; and that KVSP
did not obtain a modification order from the three-judge
court established to oversee the Plata ruling. These
claims are not subject of the instant complaint, and the
Court is without jurisdiction to consider them.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for