1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH TOWNSEND, No. 1:24-cv-01285-KES-GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. (Doc. No. 16) 14 T. COOK, et al.,

15 Defendant.

16 17 Plaintiff Joseph Townsend is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this now closed civil rights action filed pursuant to

. On 19 February 13, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, (Doc. 16), which the Court 20 construes to be seeking reconsideration of its order filed on February 7, 2025 adopting the 21 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and dismissing this action for failure to exhaust 22 administrative remedies. (Doc. 13.) 23 Plaintiff raises two grounds for reconsideration in his motion: First, that he timely filed 24 his “motion of opposition” within the fourteen-day deadline from the date he received the Court’s 25 order; and second, that the Court must accommodate his legal blindness and difficulty reading 26 and writing pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act by granting him more time to comply 27 28 1 with a court order.1 (Doc. 16.) Although plaintiff does not indicate the rule of procedure under 2 which he seeks relief, the Court will liberally construe the motion and treat it as a Rule 60(b) 3 motion for relief from judgment or order and as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the 4 judgment. 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 6 district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 7 on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 8 evidence . . . ; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 9 been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 11 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 12 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 13 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 14 raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 15 raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571

, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). Reconsideration 17 of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and 18 conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop,

, 890 19 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro,

(9th Cir. 2008) 20 (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). In seeking reconsideration, the moving party 21 “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control.” Harvest,

22 (internal quotation marks & citation omitted). 23 Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that a movant show “what new or 24 different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown” 25 previously, “what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were 26 not shown” at the time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered. 27 1 Plaintiff does not specify which order or orders he is referring to here, but in any event, his 28 failure to do so has no effect on the conclusion below. 1 Plaintiff’s motion does not identify any basis under Rule 60 upon which this Court should 2 reconsider its order dismissing this action. The Court considered and addressed plaintiff’s 3 objections when issuing its prior order and plaintiff presents neither newly discovered evidence 4 nor an intervening change in the controlling law that would warrant reconsideration. Neither of 5 the grounds raised in plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration addresses the reason why this action 6 was dismissed—namely, plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 7 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (Docs. 10, 13.) The timeliness of plaintiff’s filings was not at issue in, and 8 had no bearing on, the Court’s order adopting the findings and recommendations. Similarly, 9 plaintiff’s request for additional time does not identify any newly discovered evidence regarding 10 the administrative exhaustion issue or show that additional time would enable him to identify any 11 such evidence. Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law providing a basis upon which the Court 12 should reverse its prior decision. 13 The Court has discretion to amend or alter the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 14 Procedure 59(e), but such remedy is “extraordinary” and “should be used sparingly.” Allstate Ins. 15 Co. v. Herron,

(9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation 16 omitted). “In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be 17 granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the 18 judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously 19 unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the 20 amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.”

Plaintiff has not 21 established any basis for extraordinary relief under Rule 59(e), and the Court does not find that he 22 is entitled to such relief. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly: 2 1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 16) is denied; and 3 2. This case shall remain closed. 4 5 6 | TPIS SO ORDERED. _ 7 Dated: _ February 19, 2025 4h | | UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28