Opinion
Case No. CV 14-8640-PA (KK)
06-13-2015
LANCE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF DEPUTY APARICIO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff Lance Williams, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion to reconsider the Judgment this Court issued on February 5, 2015 ("Motion"). For the reasons stated below, the Motion is denied.
I.
BACKGROUND
On October 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, suing various defendants for an assault by correctional officers that allegedly occurred on May 5, 2009, when Plaintiff was an inmate at Pitchess Detention Center. ECF No. 3 at 2, 5, 14. On December 16, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") to dismiss this action with prejudice as untimely. ECF No. 8. On the same date, the Court issued a notice to the parties that written objections to the Report were due no later than January 16, 2015. ECF No. 7. No objections were filed. On February 5, 2015, the Court issued an Order accepting the Report and entered Judgment dismissing this case with prejudice. ECF Nos. 9, 10.
On February 17, 2015, Plaintiff Lance Williams, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 12 at 1. In the motion, Plaintiff claimed the Court ignored his objections to the Report and his request to voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice, which he allegedly "filed" on January 13, 2015. Id. On March 3, 2015, the Court denied the motion, explaining it had not received objections to the Report or a request to voluntarily dismiss this case. ECF No. 13 at 2.
On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, stating "new evidence" shows he "timely filed" objections to the Report and a request to voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice on January 13, 2015. ECF No. 14 at 1. The "new evidence" Plaintiff submits is a record of Plaintiff's outgoing legal mail from prison. Id. at 3. This record shows that, on January 13, 2015, Plaintiff sent legal mail to this Court. Id. The record does not state what the mail consisted of, nor which of Plaintiff's numerous cases the mail pertained to. See ECF No. 8 at 2 (noting Plaintiff has filed several civil rights complaints in this Court since September 23, 2014).
II.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) "permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order." Caroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Rule 59(e) "offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "Indeed, 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." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
As an initial matter, the instant Motion is untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (stating a motion for reconsideration must be filed within 28 days of judgment). Furthermore, the "new evidence" Plaintiff has submitted simply does not demonstrate he "timely filed" objections to the Report or a request to voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice. Rather, the new evidence merely shows Plaintiff sent some unspecified legal mail to the Court, which might have concerned any one of his cases. Thus, Plaintiff has not shown any "highly unusual circumstances" which merit the "extraordinary remedy" of amending the Court's February 5, 2015, Order. Caroll, 342 F.3d at 945.
For the foregoing reasons, the instant Motion is DENIED. DATED: June 13, 2015
/s/_________
HONORABLE PERCY ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE