(PC) Howard v. Gradtillo, 1:05-cv-00906

Howard, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Bennett, Avila, and Jones for excessive force (doc. 27).
The court previously set discovery deadlines and later revised them multiple times due to ongoing discovery disputes (docs. 50, 64, 71).
Plaintiff filed duplicative and amended motions to compel; the court denied several motions to compel with leave to amend.
Plaintiff’s motions to reconsider denials were denied for failure to meet burden and procedural defects (docs. 68, 75).
Defendants eventually moved for summary judgment on March 16, 2012, and the court denied further discovery extensions sought by Howard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b) reconsideration was properly denied	Howard argues reconsideration is warranted due to new evidence or clear error	Defendants contend no new evidence or controlling-law change; no manifest injustice shown	Denied; no new evidence or compelling grounds presented
Whether the motion to compel discovery was properly denied	Howard asserts Defendants failed to respond fully to his discovery requests	Defendants objected or did not file sufficiently specific requests; failure to meet burden	Denied; motion procedurally defective and burden not met
Whether the motion to extend the discovery deadline should be granted	Howard seeks additional time to complete discovery	No good cause shown to extend beyond existing deadlines	Denied; discovery closed with summary judgment pending
Whether Plaintiff submitted the required discovery requests and responses for the court to adjudicate	Howard claims he served requests and seeks production	Plaintiff failed to list specific requests or attach responses in the motion	Denied; procedural defect as to missing requested items and responses

Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2008) (Rule 60(b) sparingly used for extraordinary circumstances)
Marilyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2009) (new or changed law or evidence required for reconsideration)