(PS) Hedrington v. David Grant Medical Center

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ORLONZO HEDRINGTON,

12 Plaintiff, No. 2:23-cv-00801-TLN-CKD

13 14 v. ORDER DAVID GRANT MEDICAL CENTER, et 15 al., 16 Defendants,

18 19 20 21 22 This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Orlonzo Hendrington’s (“Plaintiff”) 23 request for the case to be reversed, set for trial, or proceed to settlement. (ECF No. 79.) For the 24 reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the request.

25 26 27 28 1 Judgment was entered in this civil rights action on March 28, 2024. (ECF Nos. 62, 63.) 2 Plaintiff then filed three motions for relief from judgment, (ECF Nos. 64, 67, 73), and a motion to 3 set aside judgment, (ECF No. 77), which this Court construed as a motion for relief under Federal 4 Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b). (ECF No. 78 at 2.) After detailing the facts and 5 procedural history, which the Court incorporates by reference here, the undersigned denied 6 Plaintiff’s various motions for relief. (Id.) Plaintiff has now filed another request for relief under 7 Rules 60(b)(3), (d)(2), and (d)(3). (ECF No. 79.) 8 Rule 60 is to be “used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and 9 is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely 10 action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th 11 Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). Rule 60(b)(3) permits relief from a final judgment for 12 “fraud . . . misrepresentations, or misconduct by an opposing party.” Rule 60(d) states the rule 13 does not limit a court’s power to “grant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1655 to a defendant who was not 14 personally notified of the action” nor “set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.” Fed. R. Civ. 15 P. 60(d)(2)-(3). 16 Under the Local Rules, motions for reconsideration are also required to state, “what new 17 or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown 18 upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion” and “why the facts or 19 circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j)(3)–(4). 20 Here, Plaintiff fails to raise any coherent argument suggesting that relief is warranted 21 under Rule 60. As before, Plaintiff only makes cursory arguments, some of which appear 22 duplicative of his arguments made in prior motions for relief. Additionally, Plaintiff has not 23 shown any altered facts or circumstances that did not exist at the time of his prior motions. 24 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff is advised that future motions for 25 reconsideration will be disregarded, and no orders will issue in response. 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 | Date: January 17, 2025 3 5 TROY L. NUNLEY 6 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28