Scott Barbour v. United States of America

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SCOTT BARBOUR, Case No. 1:18-cv-00246 JLT BAM (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT OR 12 v. ALTERNATIVELY TO ISSUE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REGARDING 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DISCOVERY MATERIAL 14 Defendant. (Doc. 85) 15 16 17 Scott Barbour seeks to hold the Government liable pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims 18 Act for the alleged failure to patrol the recreation yard prior to a race riot that occurred at United 19 States Penitentiary Atwater on July 24, 2015. 20 On June 12, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s motion to compel 21 discovery. (Doc. 73.) Plaintiff sought reconsideration of that order, which the Court denied on 22 September 20, 2025. (Doc. 82.) The Court determined that plaintiff failed to show a “clear error” 23 by the magistrate judge or that denial of his motion to compel as untimely was contrary to law. 24 (Id. at 8-11.) Plaintiff now requests the Court reconsider the discovery order under Rules 59(e) or 25 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or issue a preliminary injunction requiring the 26 Government to preserve the disputed discovery material. (Doc. 85.) The Government opposed 27 the motion on December 22, 2025. (Doc. 90.) Plaintiff replied on January 20, 2026. (Doc. 91.) 28 Generally, a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment is appropriately brought under 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 2 1985) (discussing reconsideration of summary judgment); see also Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 3 F.3d 454, 458–59 (9th Cir. 1995). The motion must be filed no later than twenty-eight (28) days 4 after entry of the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Under Rule 59(e), three grounds may 5 justify reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new 6 evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Kern-Tulare 7 Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), rev’d in part on other 8 grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988); see also 389 Orange 9 St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999); accord Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, 10 Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 12 district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 13 on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 14 evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 15 been satisfied . . .; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 16 Additionally, pursuant to this court’s Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration of an 17 order, a party must show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which 18 did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the 19 motion.” Local Rule 230(j). 20 Plaintiff contends that the magistrate judge’s denial of his motion to compel discovery 21 was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Court previously determined that Plaintiff failed to 22 show a “clear error” by the magistrate judge or that the denial of his motion to compel was 23 “contrary to law.” (Doc. 82 at 10-11.) By the instant motion, Plaintiff has not shown what new 24 or different facts or circumstances that did not exist or could not have been shown in his prior 25 request for reconsideration. Indeed, Plaintiff reiterates multiple arguments previously included in 26 his objections to the magistrate judge’s decision. (See Doc. 85 at 5, 8.) Plaintiff’s motion for 27 reconsideration will be denied. 28 Insofar as Plaintiff requests an injunction requiring the Government to preserve the 1 | disputed discovery material, the Government indicates that a litigation hold has been in place 2 | since the inception of this case. (Doc. 90 at 2.) In light of this hold, Plaintiff admits that an 3 | injunction may not be necessary, and instead requests the Court remind the Government that it 4 | must preserve the requested evidence for the duration of this litigation, including any appeals. 5 | (Doc. 91 at 2-3.) Based on this concession, Plaintiff's alternative request for injunctive relief also 6 | will be denied. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment, or alternatively to issue preliminary 8 injunction regarding discovery material, (Doc. 85), is DENIED. 9 2. This matter SHALL PROCEED to a bench trial on Plaintiff's FTCA claim regarding 10 failure to patrol the recreation yard prior to a race riot that occurred at USP Atwater on 11 July 24, 2015. 12 3. The action is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for scheduling consistent with 13 this Order. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: _ February 5, 2026 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28