(PC) Hill v. Allison

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA | Cymeyon Hill, No. 2:22-cv-00718-KJM-EFB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Kathleen Allison, et al., 1S Defendants.

17 On June 10, 2022, the court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and | recommendations, ordering the plaintiff to pay the filing fee. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff filed a | motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 12, and objections to the court’s order, ECF No. 13.

20 A motion for reconsideration or relief from a judgment is appropriately brought under | either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) | (citation omitted). The filing is timely under both rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (setting a 28-day | window to file the motion); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (motion must be “made within a reasonable | time”). Under Rule 59(e), three grounds may justify reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in | controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or | prevent manifest injustice. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, | 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986). Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment | and any order based on, among other things: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable | neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been | discovered within ten days of entry of judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct | of an opposing party. Relief under Rule 60(b) should not be granted absent “extraordinary | circumstances” showing a significant change in facts or law. Delay v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039, | 1044 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Similarly, Local Rule 230(q)(3)-(4) requires that a | movant seeking reconsideration identify “what new or different facts or circumstances” exist, or | any other grounds, to justify reconsideration of a court's prior order.

8 Plaintiff does not meet the standard for reconsideration; thus, the court denies his motion | (ECF No. 12), rendering his objections moot (ECF No. 13). The court grants the plaintiff one | last chance to pay the $402 filing fee. If the plaintiff does not pay the fee within fourteen days | from the date of this order, the action will be dismissed. This matter is referred back to the | magistrate judge for any further proceedings.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 DATED: July 12, 2022. | / □ CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE