Opinion
1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB
06-12-2015
KRISHNA REDDY, Plaintiff, v. PRECYSE SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendant.
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 108)
I. Introduction
On May 26, 2015, Plaintiff Krishna Reddy filed a motion "for an order to set aside and vacate the orders denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge [Dkt. #107], to vacate all other prior rulings, orders, and judgments, and to transfer the case to the Riverside Division of the Central District of California." Doc. 108 (capitalization altered). That motion is made pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, although not styled as such, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the order denying her motion seeking reconsideration. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs motion will be denied with prejudice.
II. Legal Standard
Under Rule 60(b), a district court may grant relief from its previous orders in the following circumstances: "(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ... (4) the judgment is void; ... 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 marks and citations omitted). Moreover, "[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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
III. Discussion
Plaintiff notes that her motion is based on "mistakes of fact and ... law" attributed to this Court and that she "re-submitt[s]" her motion to reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60. Doc. 108 at 2. Other than advising this Court that Plaintiff believes (1) that this Court and the Magistrate Judge have committed judicial misconduct by denying her motions, (2) that senior judges are not Article III Judges, and (3) that the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is unfair or invalid, Plaintiff has presented nothing new in support of her motions. Instead, she simply reiterates the same arguments that the Court rejected in its prior order. The three new arguments that Plaintiff presents are incorrect and are summarily rejected. The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's other arguments. They are denied for the same reasons articulated in Document Number 107.
IV. Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion is DENIED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 12, 2015
/s/_________
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE