Underwood v. Knowles et al
Filing
155
ORDER RE Plaintiff's 154 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 07/09/2015. (Flores, E)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2
3
4
5
6
7
Plaintiff,
8
9
Case No. 1:08 cv 00986 GSA PC
VALENTINE UNDERWOOD,
ORDER RE PLAINITFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
vs.
10
M. NORTHCUTT, et al.,
11
Defendants
(ECF NO. 154)
12
13
14
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction
15
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for
16
reconsideration of the March 26, 2015, order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’
17
motion for summary judgment.
18
The motion for summary judgment addressed Plaintiff’s claims of excessive force and
19
retaliation against Defendants Northcutt and Martin. Summary Judgment was granted in
20
Defendants’ favor on the retaliation claim and denied on the excessive force claim. Plaintiff
21
alleges that he was assaulted On November 21, 2006, in retaliation for an inmate appeal he filed
22
the previous day and that Defendant Northcutt confiscated his mail in retaliation for the
23
November 21, 2006, assault. On February 4, 2007, Plaintiff filed an inmate appeal after having
24
his incoming and outgoing mail disappear, and after finding that Defendant Northcutt had been
25
reassigned to the mailroom after the November 21, 2006, incident.
26
27
28
Summary judgment was denied on the excessive force claim on the ground that although
Defendants presented evidence that the initial use of force (the basis for Plaintiff’s retaliation
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
claim) was used to maintain order or restore discipline, Defendants used force on Plaintiff once
he was subdued. The Court found that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the initial
use of pepper-spray was provoked. There was no evidence, however, that the use of force was
motivated by the filing of an inmate grievance. The Court also found that Defendants submitted
evidence that established that they had no involvement in the handling of Plaintiff’s mail.
Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that
7
justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest
8
injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . . exist.” Harvest v.
9
Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The
10
moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . .” Id.
11
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local
12
Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed
13
to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds
14
exist for the motion.”
15
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
16
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed
17
clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,
18
Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009)(internal quotation marks
19
and citations omitted), and ‘[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a
20
disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . of that which was already
21
considered by the Court in rendering its decision,: U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp.
22
2d 111, 1131 (E. D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly
23
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist.
24
V. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 646, 665 (E. D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in
25
part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
26
Plaintiff argues that there is evidence that, just prior to the use of force, he advised
27
Defendants that he had spoken with Lt. Whitehead and, therefore, Defendants were aware of the
28
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
grievance. Taking that fact as true, Plaintiff has not come forward with evidence of a triable
issue of fact as to whether force was used in retaliation for filing a grievance. The fact that
Defendants were aware of the grievance does not establish evidence of retaliation. Plaintiff also
argues that there are affidavits of other inmates that he submitted in opposition to the motion for
summary judgment indicating that they had problems with their mail. Plaintiff argues that his
evidence establishes that C/O Northcutt was assigned to the mailroom during the time Plaintiff
had problems with his mail. Such evidence does not create a triable issue of fact as to whether
8
Northcutt interfered with Plaintiff’s mail in retaliation for the filing of an inmate grievance.
9
Northcutt’s declaration establishes that he was assigned to the mailroom, but did not handle any
10
11
of Plaintiff’s mail.
Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature in his motion for
12
reconsideration to induce the Court to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, the motion for
13
reconsideration should be denied. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
14
motion for reconsideration of the order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion
15
for summary judgment is denied.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
Dated:
19
/s/ Gary S. Austin
20
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
July 9, 2015
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?