United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No.
Lawrence J. O'Neill United States Chief District Judge.
Yglesias (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
22, 2019, the court entered findings and recommendations,
recommending that this case be dismissed, with prejudice, for
failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff was granted
fourteen days in which to file objections to the findings and
recommendations. (Id.) The fourteen-day time period
passed, and no objections were filed. (Court record.) On June
19, 2019, the undersigned adopted the findings and
recommendations in full and dismissed the case with
prejudice. (ECF No. 12.)
8, 2019, the court received and filed Plaintiff's
objections to the findings and recommendations, more than a
month after the deadline for filing objections had expired.
(ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff's objections are timely under the
mailbox rule,  because Plaintiff's signature on the
objections is dated June 4, 2019, which was within the time
period for filing objections. The court shall treat
Plaintiff's objections as a motion for reconsideration of
the court's order dismissing the case.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
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) (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 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 quotation 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).
court has again reviewed the findings and recommendations
entered on May 22, 2019, taking into consideration
Plaintiff's objections and the medical records that
Plaintiff submitted as exhibits to the objections. (ECF No.
14.) In the objections, Plaintiff states that he informed
defendant Dr. Patel of his serious medical condition,
multiple sclerosis. Plaintiff's exhibits show that
Plaintiff wrote down information about his medical condition
on four CDCR 7632 Health Care Service Request Forms (Forms)
dated May 27, 2011, May 31, 2011, July 30, 2012, and April
11, 2013. (ECF No. 14, Exhs. A & B.) However, none of the
Forms mentions Dr. Patel at all. Plaintiff has not made
factual allegations, or submitted evidence, demonstrating
that Dr. Patel was deliberately indifferent to a substantial
risk of serious harm to Plaintiff's health. As such,
Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior
decision. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration, filed on July 8, 2019, shall be denied.
on the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's
order dismissing this case, filed on July 8, 2019, is DENIED.