Opinion
No. 2:17-cv-0232-JAM-EFB P
09-09-2020
MICHAEL AARON WITKIN, Plaintiff, v. M. LEE, Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 29, 2020, the court dismissed this action with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). ECF No. 54. Judgment was duly entered. ECF No. 55. Plaintiff now moves for relief from judgment. ECF No. 56.
"[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." 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (analyzing Federal Rule 59(e) of Civil Procedure, providing for the alteration or amendment of a judgment); see also E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(j) (requiring that a motion for reconsideration explain why any new or different facts or circumstances were not previously presented to the court). In addition, Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for reconsideration of a final judgment where one of more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an opposing party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; and (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 56) advances arguments (see ECF Nos. 51 & 53) that have previously been presented to and rejected by the court (ECF No. 54). Plaintiff's motion thus fails to satisfy the Rule 60(b) standards.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 56), is DENIED. DATED: September 9, 2020
/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE