(PC) Puckett v. Liu

Opinion

Plaintiff, No. 2:19-cv-02437-TLN-CKD

v. ORDER H. LIU, et al., Defendants,

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Durrell Anthony Puckett’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for reconsideration in this closed civil rights action. (ECF No. 56.) Plaintiff also attaches a supplemental adjustment to his Third Amended Complaint, which the Court construes as a motion to amend. (Id.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions.

Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on December 4, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) Following Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, Defendants filed a motion requesting the Court terminate the action with prejudice in response to Plaintiff’s death threats against Defendants. (ECF No. 43.) After the motion was fully briefed, the assigned magistrate judge made findings and recommendations to dismiss the action with prejudice based on the factors enumerated in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). (ECF No. 51.) In so doing, the magistrate judge found less drastic sanctions were inapplicable given Plaintiff’s threats. (Id. at 9.) The undersigned adopted these findings and recommendations in full and judgment was entered on March 23, 2022. (ECF Nos. 53, 54.) Now, over two years later, Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration and seeks to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 56.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b) allows a district court to relieve a party from a final judgment or order for “any [] reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The moving party must demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances justifying the reopening of a final judgment.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005). However, Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control[.]” Id. Additionally, Local Rule 230(j) requires a motion for reconsideration to state, “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j)(3)–(4). Here, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b). The main thrust of Plaintiff’s argument appears to be that he suffers from a mental illness and had not taken his medication when he made the death threats. (ECF No. 56.) However, these facts and circumstances are neither extraordinary nor new. Plaintiff previously argued that he was suffering from mental illness and the magistrate judge considered the fact that Plaintiff had not taken his medication at the time the threats were made. (ECF No. 46 at 1; ECF No. 51 at 7.) The Court finds no sufficient reason to justify reopening this closed civil rights action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). As such, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff's motion to amend or supplement his Third Amended Complaint is DENIED as moot. Date: January 17, 2025

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE