United States District Court, E.D. California
a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court
are several motions plaintiff has filed indicating that this
case was closed in error. The court has interpreted these
motions as a motion for reconsideration. Defendants were
ordered to respond to the plaintiff's motions, and those
responses have been submitted.
court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60. Generally, a
motion for reconsideration of a final judgment is
appropriately brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e). See Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388
(9th Cir. 1985) (discussing reconsideration of summary
judgment); see also Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d
454, 458-59 (9th Cir. 1995). The motion must be filed no
later than twenty-eight (28) days after entry of the
judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Under
Rule 59(e), three grounds may justify reconsideration: (1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability
of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or
prevent manifest injustice. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist.
v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal.
1986), rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d
514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015
(1988); see also 389 Orange Street Partners v.
Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999); accord
School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263
(9th Cir. 1993).
under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration of a
final judgment and any order based on, among other things:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered within ten days of
entry of judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or
misconduct of an opposing party. A motion for reconsideration
on any of these grounds must be brought within a reasonable
time and no later than one year of entry of judgment or the
order being challenged. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1).
basis of plaintiff's motion appears to be mistake or
March 29, 2016, the undersigned conducted a settlement
conference in one of plaintiff's other cases in this
court, case number 2:14-cv-0306-EFB, at High Desert State
Prison, as well as a Lassen County Superior Court case,
number JC57685. Plaintiff was present and participated in the
negotiations with the undersigned acting as mediator between
plaintiff and defense counsel who appeared by video
conference. During the negotiations, the parties included
this case in a global settlement, settling all three cases.
Thereafter, the defendants obtained plaintiff's approval
of a stipulated dismissal, which was filed with the court on
April 4, 2016. Judgment was then entered and this case was
closed. Plaintiff now seeks to reopen this case, arguing
there was an error and this case was not included as one of
the cases settled at the settlement conference.
response, counsel for the defendants set forth their
recollection as to the events during the settlement
conference. Counsel recalls it was plaintiff's suggestion
to settle this case as part of a global settlement of all of
plaintiff's cases. As such, the defendants offered a
larger settlement in consideration of settling all three
cases. Counsel present for the defendants in the settlement
conference case then contacted counsel for the defendants in
this case, who approved the global settlement. In support of
the defendants' version of events, counsel has provided
the court with a declaration of Deputy Attorney General Aseil
Mohmoud, who participated in the settlement conference on
behalf of the defendants in a third case, the Lassen County
Superior Court case. Defense counsel sets forth the events of
the day, including the negotiation of a global settlement of
all three of plaintiff's cases, and explained that
because the agreed upon settlement included a transfer of
property the settlement agreements had to be modified.
Plaintiff was later presented with settlement agreements for
the three cases, which he agreed to and signed.
court's recollection of the events concurs with the
defense counsel's. This is supported by the stipulations
for dismissal plaintiff signed. As plaintiff indicates, the
parties were separated during the negotiations, with the
undersigned communicating with them individually. This is
typically how settlement conferences are conducted so the
parties may discuss their case freely without the opposing
party present. The negotiator then communicates between the
parties. Following the successful negotiation, plaintiff was
presented with three separate stipulations for dismissal, and
it was explained to plaintiff what he was agreeing to and
what he was getting in exchange for the three stipulated
dismissals. Plaintiff stated he understood and agreed to the
claim that he did not settle this case in
addition to the other two cases, and that the judgment and
dismissal were entered in error is unsupported. Plaintiff
provides no support for his claim that this case was not
included in the settlement. While not originally set for the
settlement conference, that did not bar the parties from
including it in a global settlement of all three cases.
Similarly, that the parties entered into a separate
settlement stipulation from the one prepared for the other
two cases at the settlement conference is not a bar to the
inclusion of this case in the settlement. Plaintiff has been
provided the benefit of the settlement, as the defendants
have paid him the agreed upon sum and property negotiated.
The court finds no error or mistake, and declines to reverse
a settlement plaintiff agreed to and has already benefitted
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motions for
reconsideration (Docs. 33, 34, 35, 36, 40) are denied.
 Pursuant to Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266 (1988), for pro se prisoner litigants seeking
reconsideration, the court calculates the 28-day period from
the date the motion was delivered to prison authorities for
mailing to the court. Otherwise, the 28-day period is
calculated based on the date the motion for reconsideration
is actually filed.
 If reconsideration is sought based on
new evidence which could not have been discovered through due
diligence in time to move for reconsideration under Rule
59(e), relief may be available under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(2). A motion under Rule 60(b)(2) may not be
brought more than one year after entry of judgment.
 Plaintiff appears to be confused as to
the judges involved in his various cases. He had two cases
pending in this court, this cases in which the undersigned
was assigned, and 2:14- cv-0306-EFB, in which case Magistrate
Judge Brennan was assigned. The undersigned was drawn to
conduct the settlement conference in Judge Brennan's
case. The undersigned was the one in ...