(PC) Price v. Barnes

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 | SCOTT RICHARD PRICE, No. 2:22-CV-0722-KJM-DMC-P 11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 | DEBORAH BARNES, et al., 4 Defendant. 15 16 Petitioner Richard Price filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing 17 | his case. For the reasons described below, the court denies petitioner’s motion. 18 A motion for reconsideration or relief from judgment is appropriately brought under either 19 | Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F. 2d 1437, 20 | 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989)). 21 | The motion “is treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 22 | Procedure 59(e) if it is filed [within the time provided by that Rule]. Am. Ironworks & Erectors, 23 | Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Because 24 | petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was filed within twenty-eight days of the entry of 25 | judgment, this motion is considered under Rule 59(e). 26 “Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly 27 | unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 28 | committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St.

1 | Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 2 | 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or different facts or 3 | circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, 4 | or what other grounds exist for the motion; and. . .why the facts or circumstances were not shown 5 | atthe time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230()(3)-(4). 6 On July 25, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 7 | recommending petitioner’s case be dismissed because petitioner failed to resolve his fee status. 8 | F&R, ECF No. 8. The judge found the petitioner failed to prosecute the case and comply with 9 | court rules in not resolving this issue, even after being warned of a possible dismissal. /d. at 1. 10 | This court adopted the findings and recommendations on November 15, 2022. Order, ECF No, 9. 11 | Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration. Mot., ECF No. 11. 12 Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration contains no new or different facts or circumstances 13 | this court may rely on. Petitioner claims only the magistrate judge failed to set a hearing 14 | regarding petitioner’s civil rights claims but does not raise any new evidence pertaining to his 15 | failure to prosecute. See generally Mot. Thus, petitioner’s motion has not met the standard under 16 | Rule 59(e) and the motion is denied. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 This order resolves ECF No. 11. 19 DATED: December 5, 2022. [\ (] 20 l ti / { q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE