Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Edwards v. Magallanes, 1:16-cv-00975-SAB (PC). (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180926960 Visitors: 4
Filed: Sep. 25, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 25, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND AMENDMENT TO SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 ORDER [ECF Nos. 33, 34] STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Steven R. Edwards is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On September 7, 2018, the Court conducted an in camera review of documentation submitted in response to the Court's July 27, 2018 order regarding Plaintiff's motion to compel. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsi
More

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND AMENDMENT TO SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 ORDER

[ECF Nos. 33, 34]

Plaintiff Steven R. Edwards is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On September 7, 2018, the Court conducted an in camera review of documentation submitted in response to the Court's July 27, 2018 order regarding Plaintiff's motion to compel.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's September 7, 2018 order, filed September 24, 2018.

Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

Plaintiff contends that the Defendants provided the sign in sheets for dates March 17-19, 2018, and a copy of the emergency room registers for dates March 17-24, 2018. Plaintiff also contends that Defendants failed to provide a copy of the phone log during first watch on March 18-19, 2015. Plaintiff's motion must be denied.

Plaintiff correctly notes that the Court's September 7, 2018, order inadvertently stated that the dates of the sign in sheets and emergency room register were for the year 2018, and not 2015. The order should have reflected that Defendants submitted and the Court reviewed the sign in sheets for dates March 17-19, 2015 and emergency room register for dates March 17-24, 2015. The Court's September 7, 2018 will therefore be amended herein to correct the typographical error. With regard to Plaintiff's claim that Defendants failed to produce the phone call logs regarding a medical condition on C-yard, Building 3C01, Defendants submitted that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry they were unable to locate such logs. The Court cannot compel something that does not exist.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration must be denied.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's September 7, 2018 is denied; and

2. The Court's September 7, 2018 order is amended to read "Defendants provided CSP Corcoran sign in sheets for dates March 17-19, 2015, and a copy of the CSP Corcoran TTA, Emergency Room Register for dates March 17-24, 2015." (Order, at 1:25-27).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer