(PC) Hill v. Allison

District Court, E.D. California·Decided July 13, 2022·No. 2:22-cv-00718·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Cymeyon Hill, No. 2:22-cv-00718-KJM-EFB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Kathleen Allison, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 On June 10, 2022, the court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and 18 | recommendations, ordering the plaintiff to pay the filing fee. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff filed a 19 | motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 12, and objections to the court’s order, ECF No. 13. 20 A motion for reconsideration or relief from a judgment is appropriately brought under 21 | either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) 22 | (citation omitted). The filing is timely under both rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (setting a 28-day 23 | window to file the motion); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (motion must be “made within a reasonable 24 | time”). Under Rule 59(e), three grounds may justify reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in 25 | controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or 26 | prevent manifest injustice. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 27 | 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986). Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment 28 | and any order based on, among other things: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

1 | neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been 2 | discovered within ten days of entry of judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct 3 | of an opposing party. Relief under Rule 60(b) should not be granted absent “extraordinary 4 | circumstances” showing a significant change in facts or law. Delay v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039, 5 | 1044 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Similarly, Local Rule 230(q)(3)-(4) requires that a 6 | movant seeking reconsideration identify “what new or different facts or circumstances” exist, or 7 | any other grounds, to justify reconsideration of a court's prior order. 8 Plaintiff does not meet the standard for reconsideration; thus, the court denies his motion 9 | (ECF No. 12), rendering his objections moot (ECF No. 13). The court grants the plaintiff one 10 | last chance to pay the $402 filing fee. If the plaintiff does not pay the fee within fourteen days 11 | from the date of this order, the action will be dismissed. This matter is referred back to the 12 | magistrate judge for any further proceedings. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 DATED: July 12, 2022. | / □ 15 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PC) Hill v. Allison, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

(PC) Hill v. Allison ((PC) Hill v. Allison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kern-Tulare Water District v. City of Bakersfield
634 F. Supp. 656 (E.D. California, 1986)
Delay v. Gordon
475 F.3d 1039 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry
950 F.2d 1437 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)