(PC) Cortinas v. Vasquez

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 9, 2025
• Docket: 1:19-cv-00367
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-0367 JLT BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REVERSAL OF THE COURT’S ORDER 13 v. DISMISSING THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 VASQUEZ, et al., (Doc. 176) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Larry William Cortinas proceeded pro se in this action, in which he sought to hold the 18 defendants liable for violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court found 19 Plaintiff failed to prosecute the action and failed to obey the Court’s orders. (Docs. 173, 174.) 20 Therefore, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice and entered judgment on August 30, 21 2024. (Doc. 174.) Plaintiff now requests the Court reverse its decision and reopen the action. 22 (Doc. 176.) The Court construes the request as a motion for reconsideration. 23 Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the 24 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 25 229 F. 3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 26 749 (9th Cir. 2008). “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 27 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 28 1 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 2 raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 3 raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 4 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks, citations omitted) (emphasis in original). 5 Generally, a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment is appropriately brought 6 under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 7 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 458–59 (9th Cir. 8 1995). However, such a motion must be filed no later than twenty-eight (28) days after entry of 9 the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Because Plaintiff filed the motion nearly six months 10 after the entry of judgment, the Court construes the motion as filed under Rule 60(b). See Moore 11 v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 650 F. App’x 406, 407 n.1 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Am. 12 Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898–99 (9th Cir. 2001) (a 13 motion for reconsideration is addressed under Rule 59(e) if it is timely, and addressed under Rule 14 60(b) if beyond the deadline). 15 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[o]n motion and just 16 terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or 17 proceeding.” Id. Rule 60(b) indicates such relief may be granted “for the following reasons:”

18 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

19 (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); 20 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic) misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 21

(4) the judgment is void; 22 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an 23 earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or 24 (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 25 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Additionally, pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules, when filing a motion for 27 reconsideration of an order, a party must show “what new or different facts or circumstances are 28 claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other 1 | grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230Q). 2 Plaintiff last engaged in this matter on February 29, 2024, when he requested a 45-day 3 | stay due to his pending parole. (Doc. 167.) The Court granted the stay, also noting Plaintiff was 4 | already released from custody as of March 25, 2024. (Doc. 168.) More than three months later, 5 | the Court issued an order to show cause to Plaintiff as to why the action should not be dismissed 6 | for his failure to prosecute and failure to keep the Court informed of his proper mailing address. 7 | (Doc. 171.) The U.S. Postal Service returned the order marked “Undeliverable, Paroled” on 8 | August 1, 2024. The magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations on August 9, 9 | 2024—which were not returned as undeliverable—and the recommendations were adopted in full 10 | on August 30, 2024. Nearly a year passed between the time Plaintiff last took any action to 11 | prosecute his claims (in February 2024) to the filing of the pending motion (in February 2025). 12 | The Court cannot, and will not, hold an inactive action open indefinitely for a plaintiff to choose 13 | when to prosecute his claims and when to comply with the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 14 | 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (district courts have inherent interest in managing their 15 | dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). 16 Plaintiff does not show the Court erred in finding that he failed to prosecute this action or 17 | that he failed to keep the Court informed of his proper mailing address as required by the Local 18 | Rules. Plaintiff also does not invoke any specific grounds for relief under Rule 60(b) to support 19 || the relief requested. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 20 1. Plaintiffs motion to reverse dismissal (Doc. 176) is DENIED. 21 2. Plaintiff's motion for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 177) is terminated as MOOT. 22 This action shall remain closed. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 | Dated: _May 9, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28