Knapp v. Cate, et al.

Filing 72

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 69 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 10/3/2011. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ERIC CHARLES RODNEY KNAPP, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01779-SMS PC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. (ECF No. 69) 12 13 MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Eric Charles Rodney Knapp (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 16 forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 20, 2008. 17 On August 8, 2011, an order issued dismissing certain claims and defendants. (ECF No. 60.) 18 Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order on September 7, 2011. (ECF No. 69.) 19 Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[o]n motion and just terms, 20 the court may relieve a party . . .from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following 21 reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence . 22 . . (3) fraud . . .; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; 23 . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b). Plaintiff brings this 24 motion requesting reconsideration of the order dismissing his claims against supervisory defendants. 25 Plaintiff argues that the ruling in Starr v. Baca, 633 F.3d. 1191 (9th Cir. 2011), held that Ashcroft 26 v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), did not alter the substantive pleading requirements for supervisory 27 liability. Plaintiff claims the order dismissing Defendants Cate, Chavez, Rawlinson, and Grannis was 28 clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 1 1 Starr stated that “a plaintiff may state a claim against a supervisor for deliberate indifference 2 based upon the supervisor’s knowledge of and acquiescence in unconstitutional conduct by his or 3 her subordinates.” Starr v. Baca, __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 2988827, * 4 (9th 2011). A supervisor may 4 be held liable under section 1983 if he was personally involved in the constitutional deprivation or 5 where there is “a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the 6 constitutional violation.” Id. at * 5 (quoting Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)). 7 In Starr the Court found that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, Plaintiff had set forth 8 sufficient factual allegations to show that the defendant had knew or should have known of the 9 constitutional violations. Starr, 2011 WL 2988827, * 14 (“Starr’s complaint makes detailed factual 10 allegations that go well beyond reciting the elements of a claim for deliberate indifference”). 11 The basis of Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is unclear to the Court. Plaintiff cites Star 12 for the proposition that Iqbal did not change the pleading requirement for supervisory liability 13 claims; however, Plaintiff did not bring his claims alleging supervisory liability. Plaintiff’s 14 American With Disabilities Act, First Amendment retaliation, Eighth Amendment, due process and 15 equal protection claims were dismissed because Plaintiff failed to set forth factual allegations 16 sufficient to state a claim for a constitutional violation. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment 17 claim against Defendant Cate was dismissed because the factual allegations in the complaint failed 18 to establish that Defendant Cate had knowledge that Plaintiff was at a risk of harm. For these 19 reasons, the Court’s decision was not in error or contrary to law and Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY 20 DENIED. 21 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: icido3 October 3, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 2

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?