Opinion
1:20-cv-00574-NE-HBK
09-22-2021
DARONTE TYRONE LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. CONNIE GIPSON, ET. AL., Defendants.
ORDER DENYFNG PLAFNTIFF' S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
(Doc.Nos. 113, 114, 119)
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Daronte Tyrone Lewis, a state prisoner, initiated this action proceeding pro se by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). The district court recently adopted the undersigned's Findings and Recommendations to grant Defendants' motion to dismiss only to the extent Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities, but to deny the motion in all other respects. (Doc. No. 120).
Currently pending before the Court are the following motions filed by Plaintiff: (1) motion for reconsideration seeking reconsideration of the Court's order denying him appointment of counsel, filed on August 4, 2021 (Doc. No. 113); (2) motion for reconsideration of the Court's order denying his request "for intervention by the United States," filed on August 9, 2021 (Doc. No. 114); and, a 151-page motion entitled "reconsideration," incorporating a motion for an evidentiary hearing, but is otherwise unclear as to what order Plaintiff requests the Court to reconsider, filed on September 20, 2021. (Doc. No. 119). For the reasons below, Plaintiffs motions are denied.
A. Standard of Review under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final judgment, orders, or proceedings of the district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceedings on grounds of: "(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence . . .; (3) fraud ... of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied ... or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any event "not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken." Id.
When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show the "new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion." Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. See Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). 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, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), off'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
B. Plaintiffs Reconsideration Motions
In the first motion, Plaintiff states that the Court erroneously denied him appointment of counsel and decided that "due to lack of funds/compensation, it.... does not have to . . . refer and or appoint counsel for the limited scope and purpose of discovery Procedure and Process . . ." (Doc. No. 113 at 2). Plaintiff re-asserts that this hand injury makes him handicap and that he requires accommodation, or appointment of counsel, to prosecute his case. (Id.). Plaintiff further alleges he trades his meals to inmates so they assist him. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff incorporates within his motion medical notes dated July 9, 2021, reflecting Plaintiff fell and injured his right arm; "possible carpal tunnel syndrome"; "tone was normal"; "wrist and hand strength" was "4/5 verses 5/5 on the left"; "no atrophy was noted." (Id. at 9). Following an EMG test, the report indicated "no evidence" of carpal tunnel on Plaintiffs wrist. (Id. at 10).
In Plaintiffs second motion, consisting of 88-pages, he again requests intervention of the United States, or the State, in the CDCR. (Doc. No. 114). Plaintiff motion re-alleges the facts at issue in his Complaint. (Id. at 4-5). And, finally, Plaintiffs third motion, as noted above, consisting of over 100 pages, is unclear what order he seeks the Court to reconsider. (Doc. No.
C. Analysis
Here, Plaintiff does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 60(b) in any of his three reconsideration motions, because he does not present any new facts, circumstances, or law to justify reconsideration of the Court's prior orders. Regarding the order denying Plaintiffs motion to appoint of counsel, the Court never suggested a lack of funds to appoint counsel, but instead found no exceptional circumstances present. (See Doc. Nos. 106, 112). The Court noted Plaintiff appeared to be able to litigate his case. (Doc. No. 106 at 2-3). Plaintiff s reconsideration motion raises the same facts before, e.g., that his wrist condition precludes him from prosecuting his action, but this issue was previously raised and rejected. (Doc. No. 106 at 2-3). Incorporated within the motion for reconsideration is medical documentation further supporting the Court's prior denial of counsel. (Doc. No. 113 at 9-10). Indeed, despite his complaints that he cannot write, Plaintiff continues to file prolific and lengthy motions.
Plaintiffs other two reconsideration motions fare no better. Both are in excess of the page limitations for e-filing. The Court has previously warned Plaintiff about his prolific filing. (See Doc. No. 107). The Rule 60(b) standards "reflect[] district courts' concern for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial efficiency." Arnoldv. County of El Dorado, 2012 WL 2117678 * 1 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (citations omitted). At most, Plaintiff merely rehashes the arguments he raised in previous motions that were rejected.
Further, to the extent Plaintiff requests an evidentiary hearing, his request is denied. There are no facts that require development at a hearing given the procedural posture of this case. Considering the district court recently adopted the undersigned's findings and recommendations denying Defendants' motion to dismiss, by separate order the court will stay the case and permit the parties an opportunity to participate in early alternative dispute resolution.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs motions for reconsideration (Doc. Nos 113, 114, 119) are DENIED.
2. Plaintiffs motion for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 119) is DENIED.
3. By separate order the Court will issue an order staying the case for purposes of permitting the parties to consider whether to engage in alternative dispute resolution.