Royal v. Knight et al

Filing 64

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 61 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/7/14. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARLIN LATTEREAL ROYAL,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
S. KNIGHT, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-01407-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 61)

17

I.

Background

18

Plaintiff Marlin Lattereal Royal (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, proceeded pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeded on Plaintiff’s

20

complaint against Defendant Knight for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and

21

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and against Defendant Clark for failure to protect in

22

violation of the Eighth Amendment. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.

23

On December 20, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF

24

No. 59.) Additionally, the Clerk of the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants Knight and

25

Clark and closed the file. (ECF Nos. 59, 60.)

26
27

On January 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Knight. (ECF No. 61.) Defendants filed an

28
1

1

opposition to the motion for reconsideration on January 28, 2014, and Plaintiff replied on March 3,

2

2014. (ECF Nos. 62, 63.) The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
II.

3

Discussion
A. Legal Standard

4

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,

5
6

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there

7

is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH

8

& Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). “A party

9

seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and

10

recapitulation ...” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision. United

11

States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal.2001). To succeed, a party must

12

set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.

13

See Kern–Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal.1986), affirmed

14

in part and reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.1987).
Additionally, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration, a

15
16

party must show what “new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist

17

or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule

18

230(j).

19
20
21

B. Parties’ Arguments
1. Plaintiff’s Motion
Plaintiff contends that he recently discovered a new witness and has obtained an affidavit/

22

declaration raising a genuine dispute of material fact. To support his contention, Plaintiff has

23

submitted an undated, handwritten declaration from an inmate whose name is illegible. According to

24

the declaration, this inmate was at SATF/Corcoran State Prison in 2009 and swears under penalty of

25

perjury to personally witnessing Defendant Knight “push and slam [Plaintiff] into cell frame door” and

26

Plaintiff “complain . . . of pain in shoulder.” (ECF No. 61, p. 3.) This inmate also reports personal

27

knowledge of Defendant Knight asking the inmate “to say [Plaintiff] threaten me to sign affidavit” and

28
2

1

Defendant Knight “telling [Plaintiff] to chill his 602/citizen complaint.” (Id.) Based on this

2

declaration, Plaintiff asks the Court to allow the matter to proceed to a jury trial.
2. Defendants’ Opposition

3

In opposition, Defendants argue that the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion for

4
5

reconsideration because Plaintiff failed to explain why he could not have presented the declaration

6

when he initially opposed the motion for summary judgment. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has

7

presented no new law or facts warranting reconsideration. Instead, Defendants contend that Plaintiff

8

merely repeats his own contention that Defendant Knight used excessive force by pushing him, which

9

the Court rejected in granting the motion for summary judgment.
3. Plaintiff’s Reply

10

Plaintiff’s reply is not entirely clear. It appears that Plaintiff is claiming that Defendant Knight

11
12

pushed Plaintiff in retaliation for exercising his constitutional rights. Plaintiff also raises an argument

13

regarding the Court’s determination that summary judgment should be granted in favor of Defendant

14

Clark on the failure to protect claim.
C. Analysis

15

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers and the submitted declaration, but does not

16
17

find any basis warranting either reconsideration of the Court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for

18

summary judgment or allowing this matter to proceed to trial. Primarily, Plaintiff does not provide

19

any explanation as to why he could not have presented this recent declaration with his opposition to

20

the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 61.) Plaintiff does not state when he learned of this new

21

witness or when he obtained the declaration. Indeed, Plaintiff appears to be purposely vague in his

22

moving papers and he has presented the court with an undated declaration from an unidentifiable

23

inmate.

24

Further, the declaration does not present any new facts sufficient to warrant reconsideration of

25

the order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. With regard to the claim of excessive

26

against Defendant Knight, the Court reasoned as follows:

27
28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

[E]ven if the Court assumes that Defendant Knight pushed Plaintiff into the cell frame,
the Court finds that the amount of force was de minimis and does not rise to the level of a
constitutional violation. At best, Defendant Knight pushed Plaintiff a single time, which did
not result in bruising or other discernible injury. (UMF 19-21.) Plaintiff’s assertion that he
suffered injury by reference to pain medication and his shoulder popping out of place does not
raise a genuine dispute of material fact. (ECF No. 48, p. 1.) Plaintiff does not provide medical
records supporting his assertions; the available medical records identify only a one-time
prescription for Ibuprofen and the absence of any physical injury to Plaintiff’s shoulder. (Defs’
Ex. 3.) Plaintiff also contends that he endured mental pain and suffering as a result of the
incident, but Plaintiff’s psychiatric records do not support this contention. Rather, according to
the records, Plaintiff’s psychiatric complaints stemmed from his purported loss of property.
(Ex. A to ECF No. 48, p. 16.)

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

The Court therefore concludes that the single push by Defendant Knight, which did not
result in injury, fails to rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. See, Wilkins, 559
U.S. at 38, Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9; see also Washington v. Duncan, 2011 WL 2020703, *2
(N.D. Cal. May 2, 2011) (inmate pushed a single time against a chain-link fence, resulting only
in a scratch or abrasion, did not rise to the level an Eighth Amendment violation). Defendants’
motion for summary judgment shall be granted on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against
Defendant Knight.
(ECF No. 59, pp. 11-12.)
The recent declaration, which is an eyewitness account that Defendant Knight pushed and

15

slammed Plaintiff into the cell frame door, does not present the Court with new evidence for

16

reconsideration. Rather, the declaration merely corroborates Plaintiff’s original contention that

17

Defendant Knight “push or/shove Plaintiff into cell frame.” (ECF No. 48, p.8.) As noted above, the

18

Court considered this evidence in reaching its determination on the motion for summary judgment.

19

In connection with the retaliation claim, Plaintiff has not demonstrated how the declaration

20

assists him in satisfying the elements of a retaliation claim against Defendant Knight. In particular,

21

Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to warrant reconsideration. The

22

declarant’s statement that he has personal knowledge of Defendant Knight telling Plaintiff to “chill his

23

602/Citizen Complaint” alone does not provide evidence of retaliation. (ECF No. 61, p. 3.) The

24

declarant’s statement that Defendant Knight asked him to state that Plaintiff threatened him to sign an

25

affidavit also does not provide evidence of retaliation. Plaintiff makes no connection or argument

26

between the declarant’s statements and the claim of retaliation.

27
28
4

1

Finally, Plaintiff raises an issue in his reply concerning the Court’s grant of summary judgment

2

in favor of Defendant Clark. However, Plaintiff has not presented any new facts or law to warrant

3

reconsideration.

4

III.

Conclusion and Order

5

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting

6

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

March 7, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5