Opinion
No. 2:11-cv-1582 JAM AC P
05-29-2013
JOHNAE HOYT, Plaintiff, v. KATHRYN GONZALES, Defendants.
ORDER
Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion for reconsideration in this prisoner civil rights case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 43. Judgment was entered and this case was closed on January 10, 2013. ECF Nos. 39, 40.
On December 10, 2012, Magistrate Judge Claire issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that defendant's motion for failure to state a claim be granted and the instant case dismissed. ECF No. 38. No objections were filed and this court adopted the Findings and Recommendations on January 10, 2013. ECF No. 39. Plaintiff's belated objections were filed on January 22, 2013, nearly a month beyond the deadline for filing objections. By Order, filed on February 1, 2013, Judge Claire directed that the belated filing be placed in the file and disregarded. ECF No. 42.
The objections were filed in the court's case docket on January 28, 2013, but pursuant to Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988), a pro se prisoner filing is dated from the date a prisoner delivers it to prison authorities. See also, Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009), holding that "the Houston mailbox rule applies to § 1983 complaints filed by pro se prisoners"). While plaintiff did not include a properly signed and dated proof of service, the court will permit application of the mailbox rule to the document with reference to the date plaintiff includes with his signature in his objections. ECF No. 41 at 10.
Plaintiff contends that the objections were filed on January 17, 2013 (which would nevertheless have been untimely by more than three weeks). However, while plaintiff's declaration in support of his objections was dated January 17, 2013, the signature on the objections themselves is dated January 22, 2013. The court concludes that plaintiff could not have filed the objections before the latter date.
--------
Plaintiff contends that his untimely objections were unfairly disregarded by the magistrate judge. Plaintiff claims that he had explained in his objections that, despite his having filed his change of address some three months before, he did not receive the Findings and Recommendations until December 21, 2012. He further contends that he explained he had been unable to gain access to the law library until January 17, 2013 due to his housing in administrative segregation (ad seg). ECF No. 43. However, the court's review of the objections does not show that this relatively fuller explanation for the tardiness of the objections was set forth in that document. Instead, near the very end of the objections, plaintiff mentioned very briefly that the objections were late as there were only two cages for three ad seg buildings, making it very difficult to get to the law library to conduct research and make copies. ECF No. 41 at 9. No reference is made to the Findings and Recommendations having been misdirected to him by the Clerk of the Court. Moreover, the record shows that the latest notice of a change of address in the instant case had been filed on January 17, 2012, nearly a year before the issuance of the Findings and Recommendations. ECF No. 21. In addition, that notice was not filed in the instant case by plaintiff; his address was modified on the docket by the Clerk, due to a notice of change of address filed in a separate case, Case No. 2:11-cv-2582 CMK P. See ECF No. 20. In addition, the notice of change of address docketed in Case No. 2:11-cv-2582 CMK P on December 13, 2012, included plaintiff's admission that he had been negligent in failing to provide the court with timely notice of his change of address. Plaintiff acknowledged that he had failed to timely receive an order in that case due to his failure to update his address. See ECF Nos. 14 and 15 in Case No. 2:11-cv-2582 CMK P. Plaintiff does not explain why, in the instant case, he did not seek an extension of time to file objections at the time when he claims that he did receive the Findings and Recommendations.
Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, Frito-Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981), considerations of judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus Local Rule 230(j)(3) requires that a party seeking reconsideration of a district court's order must brief the "new or different facts or circumstances [which] are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion." The rule derives from the "law of the case" doctrine which provides that the decisions on legal issues made in a case "should be followed unless there is substantially different evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would result in injustice." Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1064 (1986).
Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the alteration or amendment of a judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful party to "rehash" arguments previously presented, or to present "contentions which might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment." Costello v. United States, 765 F.Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D.Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986); Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991). These holdings "reflect[] district courts' concerns for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial efficiency." Costello, 765 F.Supp. at 1009.
Under Rule 60(b), a party may move for relief from judgment on the following grounds: "(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..., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged... or (6) any other reason that justifies relief."
"A 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 and citations omitted). In seeking reconsideration, a party "must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision," and recapitulating arguments the court has previously considered "fails to carry the moving party's burden)." United States v. Westlands Water District, 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal.2001) (internal quotation/citation omitted).
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration includes nothing that speaks to the substance of his claims. In reviewing the untimely objections he wishes the court to consider, the undersigned finds that plaintiff provides no new evidence that could not have been provided earlier, identifies no intervening change in the law, and essentially rehashes the arguments raised in his opposition to the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's disagreement with this court's previous ruling amounts to little more than a recapitulation of arguments previously considered.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration (see ECF No. 43), this court's order of January 10, 2013 (ECF No. 39) is affirmed.
John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE