Hamilton v. Yates et al

Filing 74

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 68 Motion for Reconsideration re Judgment; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 69 Motion for Reconsideration re Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations and ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 73 Motion to Alter, Amend or in the Alternative, Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/28/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAUL C. HAMILTON,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
J.A. YATES, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-1925-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE
JUDGMENT,
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION RE ORDER
ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND

17

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
ALTER, AMEND, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, RECONSIDERATION

18

(ECF NOS. 68, 69, 73)

16

19
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
20
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1-2.) On September 22,
21
2015, judgment was entered for Defendants Mattingly, Trimble, Spearman and Yates on
22
23
24

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim. (ECF No. 67.) This
followed the undersigned’s adoption, in full, of the magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendation to grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 64,

25
66.) Plaintiff has now filed three motions for reconsideration seeking relief from
26
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)(2). (ECF Nos. 68, 69, and
27
28

73.) For the reasons set forth here, Plaintiff’s motions will be denied.

1

Under Rule 59(e), three grounds may justify reconsideration: (1) an intervening

2 change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct
3 clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Kern–Tulare Water Dist. v. City of
4 Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), rev'd in part on other grounds, 828
5 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988); see also 389 Orange
6 Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999); accord School Dist. No. 1J
7 v. AC & S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Courts construing Rule 59(e) have
8 noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful party to
9 “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present “contentions which might have
10 been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F. Supp.
11 1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir.
12 1986); Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991).
13 These holdings “reflect[ ] district courts' concerns for preserving dwindling resources
14 and promoting judicial efficiency.” Costello, 765 F. Supp. at 1009.
15

In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of

16 final orders of the district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from
17 a final order or judgment on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
18 excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence...; (3) fraud...of an adverse party; (4)
19 the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied ... or (6) any other reason
20 justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A motion for
21 reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the
22 ... court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there
23 is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos
24 Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009).
25

Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what

26 new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were
27 not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why
28
2

1 the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal.,
2 Local Rule 230(j)(3)-(4).
3

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v.

4 Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d
5 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a
6 strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g.,
7 Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986),
8 aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
9

Plaintiff proceeded in this action on his claim that his constitutional right to

10 outdoor exercise was violated during a lockdown and a modified program following a
11 riot. In granting summary judgment for Defendants, the Court explained that a
12 deprivation of outdoor exercise is not a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment.
13 Whether it is a violation depends on the specific facts of the deprivation. Following
14 examination of the evidence and upon consideration of the parties’ arguments, the
15 Court held that there was no dispute that the Defendants were continuously, prudently,
16 and successfully looking out for the safety and security of all prisoners and staff when
17 placing and maintaining the C facility on lockdown and modified program. In light of
18 Plaintiff’s failure to present any admissible evidence countering Defendants’ evidence
19 that it was not safe to return Plaintiff to normal programming until September 2007, the
20 Court found that Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of material fact.
21

In the instant motion, Plaintiff’s primary contention is that the Court erred when it

22 credited Defendants’ “self-serving” evidence. But as set forth more fully in the
23 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, Plaintiff failed to submit any
24 evidence creating a dispute of fact. For example, though Plaintiff challenged
25 Defendants’ findings as to the cause of the riot and the continued threat of violence, he
26 admitted that he was not privy to staff’s investigative results, the results of searches of
27 the C Facility and inmates’ cells, the interviews with other inmates, and any discussions
28 between the leaders of the involved groups. Moreover, there was no evidence that
3

1 Plaintiff, beyond being a prisoner, had any qualifications enabling him to address safe
2 and appropriate methods for a prison to respond to such a major disruption or the length
3 of time it should take to ensure safety of staff and inmates after such an event. Lastly,
4 even assuming that Plaintiff was improperly denied outdoor exercise during the modified
5 program, Plaintiff had not raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he suffered
6 adverse consequences as a result of post-riot prison conditions. Plaintiff’s remaining
7 arguments are identical to those raised in his opposition to Defendants’ motion for
8 summary judgment and previously considered by the Court.
9

Because Plaintiff has provided no evidence or circumstances that would satisfy

10 the requirements of either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), his motions for reconsideration
11 must be denied.
12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1. Plaintiff’s October 7, 2015, motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 68) is
DENIED;

14
15

2. Plaintiff’s October 7, 2015, motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 69) is
DENIED; and

16
17
18
19
20

3. Plaintiff’s October 19, 2015, motion to alter, amend, or in the alternative,
reconsideration (ECF No. 73) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

January 28, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21

4.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4