Anderson v. Hansen et al

Filing 84

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 82 Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant Hartley signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/13/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 IREN ANDERSON, Case No. 1:09-cv-01924-LJO-MJS (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HARTLEY 14 15 RON D. HANSEN, et al., (ECF No. 82) 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff Iren Anderson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 20 filed this civil rights action on November 2, 2009 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter 21 originally proceeded on claims of excessive force against Defendant Hansen, failure to 22 protect against Defendant Hartley, and failure to intervene against Defendant Lewis. On 23 September 13, 2013, the undersigned adopted findings and recommendations granting 24 Defendant Hartley’s motion for summary judgment. 25 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order granting 26 summary judgment in favor of Defendant Hartley. Plaintiff argues summary judgment 27 should be reconsidered because (1) Plaintiff may have located documents potentially 28 showing inmate excessive force complaints against Defendant Hanson, suggesting Hartley, 1 1 a supervisor, knew or should have known of Hansen’s propensity to use of excessive force, 2 and (2) Plaintiff was unable to present this evidence earlier because of his incarceration, 3 lack of assistance from other inmates, and a facility transfer on September 17, 2013. The 4 motion for reconsideration shall be denied for the reasons stated below. 5 I. LEGAL STANDARD Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that 6 7 justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent 8 manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances exist. 9 Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in 10 relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed 11 to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other 12 grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the 13 time of the prior motion.” 14 II. 15 ANALYSIS Plaintiff is not entitled to reconsideration. Firstly, Plaintiff does not cite to any newly 16 discovered evidence. He refers to unspecified documents, not in his possession, which 17 potentially could show a practice of excessive force by Defendant Hansen. He concludes 18 Defendant Hartley must have known of these documents because Hartley was a 19 supervisor. However, such argument as to the contents of these alleged documents, 20 Hartley’s awareness thereof, and inference therefrom is purely speculative. Hartley is not 21 liable based solely on his supervisory status. Plaintiff was so advised in the findings and 22 recommendations. The instant motion does not demonstrate or even suggest Defendant 23 Warden Hartley participated directly or indirectly in the events giving rise to this case or that 24 he had any advance warning or knowledge of them until after the event. 25 Secondly, Plaintiff’s suggestion his incarceration, lack of assistance from other 26 inmates, and September 17, 2013 facility transfer made the documents unavailable to 27 oppose summary judgment is unavailing. The summary judgment motion was filed in 28 January 2013. Plaintiff’s opposition originally was due February 4, 2013. Local Rule 230(l). 2 1 Plaintiff has since been the beneficiary of some four extensions of time totaling in excess of 2 six months in duration. He has had ample opportunity to prepare and file opposition. Yet he 3 failed to oppose summary judgment notwithstanding Court order that he do so. Plaintiff’s objections to findings and recommendations granting Hartley’s summary 4 5 judgment motion, which objections were filed prior to September 17, 2013, did not identify 6 any point of disagreement or factual or legal error. Nor does the instant motion challenge 7 the Court’s conclusion there is no basis for attributing liability to Defendant Hartley, or 8 suggest facts essential to such challenge are unavailable to Plaintiff so as to justify relief 9 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(e). Finally, Plaintiff cites to no error of law or fact in the Court’s decision to grant 10 11 Hartley’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff does not dispute the Court’s factual 12 analysis and its application of law to facts. In summary, Plaintiff does not provide any reason for the Court to reconsider its 13 14 grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Hartley. Plaintiff’s mere disagreement is 15 not a sufficient basis for reconsideration. “A motion for reconsideration should not be 16 granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with 17 newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in 18 the controlling law” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 19 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). It is not enough to merely disagree with the Court’s decision or 20 simply restate that already considered by the court. United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 21 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Reconsideration is not a vehicle by which to 22 obtain a second bite at the apple; it is reserved for extraordinary circumstances. Westlands 23 Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d at 1131; see also In re Pacific Far East Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d 24 242, 250 (9th Cir. 1989). 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 3 1 III. ORDER 2 Accordingly, for the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion 3 for reconsideration of the order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Hartley 4 (ECF No. 82) is DENIED. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill November 13, 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?