Opinion
1:22-cv-0874 JLT SKO
10-09-2024
DAVID W. WILSON, Plaintiff, v. STUART SHERMAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 35)
Previously, the Court determined Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for a violation of his civil rights arising under the Eighth Amendment, but Plaintiff failed to state claims for violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Therefore, the Court ordered the action would proceed only on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim. (Doc. 30.) Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the Court's order dismissing his other claims pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 35.)
I. Reconsideration
Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.” Id. Rule 60(b) indicates such relief may be granted “for the following reasons:”
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence...;
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic) misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). In seeking reconsideration under Rule 60, the moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control.” Harvest, 531 F.3d at 749 (internal quotation marks, citation omitted).
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks, citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires a movant to show “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 the substance of the order which is objected to was considered.
II. Discussion and Analysis
Plaintiff contends the Court should exercise “jurisdiction for the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act” claims. (Doc. 35 at 1, citing Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 118 (9th Cir. 2006).) Plaintiff asserts that the Court should grant reconsideration of its prior order dismissing hit claim under the ADA/Rehabilitation Act, based upon “the availability of new evidence” and “the need to correct error or prevent manifest injustice.” (Id. at 3.) Thus, Plaintiff asserts reconsideration is warranted under Rule 60(b)(1) and (2). (See id. at 1.)
A. Mistake
With respect to “mistake,” under Rule 60(b)(1), a party “may seek relief from an excusable mistake on the part of a party or counsel, or if the district court has made a substantive error of law or fact in its judgment or order.” Bretana v. Int'l Collection Corp., 2010 WL 1221925, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Utah ex. Rel. Div. of Forestry v. United States, 528 F.3d 712, 722-23 (10th Cir. 2008)). In general, “an inadvertent mistake involves a misunderstanding of the surrounding facts and circumstances.” Melo v. Zumper, Inc., 2020 WL 1891796, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2020) (citing Eskridge v. Cook Cty., 577 F.3d 806, 809 (7th Cir. 2009)).
Plaintiff contends that the Court should take jurisdiction over the third cause of action in his second amended complaint for violations of the ADA/Rehabilitation Act. (See Doc. 35 at 1-3.) Significantly, however, the dismissal was not based upon a jurisdictional defect, but rather pleading defects. The Court found Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support his claims, particularly because Plaintiff failed to allege facts supporting a conclusion that he suffered discrimination “by reason of his disability.” (See Doc. 29 at 15.) In other words, Plaintiff failed to allege facts supporting a conclusion that the defendants acted in a discriminatory manner because of Plaintiff's disability. Without such facts, Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. See Simmons v. Simmons v. Navajo Cty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The ADA prohibits discrimination because of disability, not inadequate treatment for disability.”)
Plaintiff fails to show any mistake by the Court in its analysis of his third cause of action. He does not show any misunderstanding of the alleged facts and allegations by the Court. In addition, Plaintiff fails to show a substantive error of law in its analysis regarding the sufficiency of his pleadings. He does not identify facts the Court failed to consider in its analysis or identify allegations in the SAC that establish a cognizable claim under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. Thus, Plaintiff fails to show relief under Rule 60(b)(1) is appropriate for a “mistake” by the Court.
B. “Newly discovered evidence”
Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2), reconsideration may be appropriate based upon “newly discovered evidence” that could not have been previously discovered “with reasonable diligence.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2). In support of his motion, Plaintiff attached only a copy of his “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations,” which was originally filed with this Court on April 29, 2024. (Id. at 4-7.) Beyond this, Plaintiff does not identify any new facts he recently discovered that could support his claims for relief. Indeed, all facts related to Plaintiff's claims were known to him at the time he drafted the second amended complaint, and the Court previously considered the objections prior to adopting the Findings and Recommendations. (See Doc. 31 at 1-2.) Because Plaintiff does not identify “newly discovered evidence” that necessitates reconsideration, he is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(2).
C. Other reasons that justify relief
Finally, Plaintiff contends reconsideration is warranted to “prevent manifest injustice.” (Doc. 35 at 3.) However, Plaintiff does not identify what, if any, manifest injustice may result from the denial of his motion. Although Plaintiff clearly indicates his disagreement with the Court's order, his disagreement is insufficient to support a request for reconsideration. United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (“A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision”); Pac. Stock, Inc. v. Pearson Educ., 927 F.Supp.2d 991, 1005 (D.Haw. 2013) (“Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.”) (citation omitted).
III. Conclusion and Order
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 35) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.