(PC) Wilson v. Sherman

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 DAVID W. WILSON, Case No.: 1:22-cv-0874 JLT SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. (Doc. 35) 14 STUART SHERMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. [16] 17 Previously, the Court determined Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for a violation of his 18 civil rights arising under the Eighth Amendment, but Plaintiff failed to state claims for violations 19 of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities 20 Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Therefore, the Court ordered the action would proceed only on 21 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim. (Doc. 30.) Plaintiff now moves 22 for reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing his other claims pursuant to Rule 60 of the 23 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 35.) 24 I. Reconsideration 25 Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[o]n motion and just 26 terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or 27 proceeding.” Id. Rule 60(b) indicates such relief may be granted “for the following reasons:” 1 (2) newly discovered evidence…; 2 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic) misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; [3] (4) the judgment is void; [4] (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is 5 based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or [6] (6) any other reason that justifies relief. [7] 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 9 Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the 10 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, [11] 229 F. 3d 877 , 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737 , 12 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). In seeking reconsideration 13 under Rule 60, the moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his 14 control.” Harvest, 531 F.3d at 749 (internal quotation marks, citation omitted). 15 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 16 unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 17 there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments 18 or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 19 litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th 20 Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks, citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Further, Local 21 Rule 230(j) requires a movant to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed 22 to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist 23 for the motion;” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown” at the time the substance of 24 the order which is objected to was considered. 25 II. Discussion and Analysis 26 Plaintiff contends the Court should exercise “[j]urisdiction for the Americans with 27 Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act” claims. (Doc. 35 at 1, citing Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 118 (9th Cir. 2006).) Plaintiff asserts that the Court should grant reconsideration of its 1 prior order dismissing hit claim under the ADA/Rehabilitation Act, based upon “the availability of 2 new evidence” and “the need to correct error or prevent manifest injustice.” (Id. at 3.) Thus, 3 Plaintiff asserts reconsideration is warranted under Rule 60(b)(1) and (2). (See id. at 1.) 4 A. Mistake 5 With respect to “mistake,” under Rule 60(b)(1), a party “may seek relief from an excusable 6 mistake on the part of a party or counsel, or if the district court has made a substantive error of law 7 or fact in its judgment or order.” Bretana v. Int'l Collection Corp., 2010 WL 1221925 , at *1 (N.D. 8 Cal. 2010 ) (citing Utah ex. Rel. Div. of Forestry v. United States, 528 F.3d 712, 722-23 (10th Cir. 9 2008)). In general, “an inadvertent mistake involves a misunderstanding of the surrounding facts 10 and circumstances.” Melo v. Zumper, Inc., 2020 WL 1891796 , at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2020) 11 (citing Eskridge v. Cook Cty., 577 F.3d 806, 809 (7th Cir. 2009)). 12 Plaintiff contends that the Court should take jurisdiction over the third cause of action in 13 his second amended complaint for violations of the ADA/Rehabilitation Act. (See Doc. 35 at 1-3.) 14 Significantly, however, the dismissal was not based upon a jurisdictional defect, but rather 15 pleading defects. The Court found Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support his claims, 16 particularly because Plaintiff failed to allege facts supporting a conclusion that he suffered 17 discrimination “by reason of his disability.” (See Doc. 29 at 15.) In other words, Plaintiff failed to 18 allege facts supporting a conclusion that the defendants acted in a discriminatory manner because 19 of Plaintiff’s disability. Without such facts, Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. See 20 Simmons v. Simmons v. Navajo Cty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The ADA 21 prohibits discrimination because of disability, not inadequate treatment for disability.”) 22 Plaintiff fails to show any mistake by the Court in its analysis of his third cause of action. 23 He does not show any misunderstanding of the alleged facts and allegations by the Court. In 24 addition, Plaintiff fails to show a substantive error of law in its analysis regarding the sufficiency 25 of his pleadings. He does not identify facts the Court failed to consider in its analysis or identify 26 allegations in the SAC that establish a cognizable claim under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. 27 Thus, Plaintiff fails to show relief under Rule 60(b)(1) is appropriate for a “mistake” by the Court. 1 B. “Newly discovered evidence” 2 Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2), reconsideration may be appropriate based upon “newly 3 | discovered evidence” that could not have been previously discovered “with reasonable diligence.” 4 | See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). In support of his motion, Plaintiff attached only a copy of his 5 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” which was originally filed 6 | with this Court on April 29, 2024. Ud. at 4-7.) Beyond this, Plaintiff does not identify any new 7 | facts he recently discovered that could support his claims for relief. Indeed, all facts related to 8 | Plaintiffs claims were known to him at the time he drafted the second amended complaint, and 9 | the Court previously considered the objections prior to adopting the Findings and 10 | Recommendations. (See Doc. 31 at 1-2.) Because Plaintiff does not identify “newly discovered 11 | evidence” that necessitates reconsideration, he is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(2). 12 C. Other reasons that justify relief 13 Finally, Plaintiff contends reconsideration is warranted to “prevent manifest injustice.” 14 | (Doc. 35 at 3.) However, Plaintiff does not identify what, if any, manifest injustice may result 15 | from the denial of his motion. Although Plaintiff clearly indicates his disagreement with the 16 | Court’s order, his disagreement is insufficient to support a request for reconsideration. United 17 | States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (“A party seeking 18 | reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision’); Pac. Stock, Inc. 19 | v. Pearson Educ., 927 F. Supp. 2d 991, 1005 (D.Haw. 2013) (“Mere disagreement with a previous 20 | order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.”) (citation omitted). 21 | Il. Conclusion and Order 22 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60 23 | of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 35) is DENIED. [24] 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: _ October 9, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE