Coleman v. CDCR, et al.

Filing 102

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 99 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/3/13. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ROBERT E. COLEMAN, 9 10 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:09-cv-00224-DLB PC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. ECF No. 11 12 CDCR, et al., Defendants. 13 14 Plaintiff Robert E. Coleman (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 15 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 16 forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed his 17 Fifth Amended Complaint. On January 4, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to 18 state a claim. ECF No. 94. On February 27, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion and 19 dismissed Plaintiff’s action with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 20 granted. ECF No. 97. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, filed 21 March 18, 2013. ECF No. 99. Defendants filed an Opposition on April 5, 2013. ECF No. 100. 22 Plaintiff filed his Reply on April 18, 2013. ECF No. 101. Because the motion was filed within 23 twenty-eight days after the issuance of the judgment, the motion is properly construed as pursuant to 24 Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 25 26 27 In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law. 28 1 1 Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). “Since specific grounds for a 2 motion to amend or alter are not listed in the rule, the district court enjoys considerable discretion in 3 granting or denying the motion.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) 4 (en banc) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Amending a judgment after its entry 5 remains “an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Id. (internal quotation marks 6 omitted). This Court’s Local Rule 230(j) requires a party seeking reconsideration to demonstrate 7 “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not 8 shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion . . . and . . . why the facts 9 or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” 10 Plaintiff contends that the Court should reconsider its ruling dismissing this action. Plaintiff 11 seeks to amend to include new facts in his pleadings regarding the property restriction, that he had 12 been accused of refusing to handcuff. Plaintiff has not demonstrated what newly discovered facts or 13 unavailable evidence requires presentation. Plaintiff was aware of the facts and circumstances 14 alleged in this action prior to the filing of his Fifth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff contends that his 15 property restriction should not have been extended an additional three months, but failed to link 16 Defendants to such an extension. Plaintiff contends that being moved to a cell with a lighting 17 problem constituted an adverse action, but the Court declined to make such a conclusion, as Plaintiff 18 failed to allege facts indicating that it would chill a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his 19 First Amendment activities. Plaintiff raises no new arguments that merit reconsideration. 20 21 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, filed March 18, 2013, is denied. 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Dennis May 3, 2013 L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 DEAC_Signature-END: 26 3b142a 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?