Jackson v. Yates et al

Filing 132

ORDER Denying 127 Motion for Reconsideration to Re-open Discovery as to Claim against Defendant Samonte, and Submit Status Report; ORDER Denying 128 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Thirty (30) Days to Submit Status Report as to Claim against Defendant Samonte to Re-open Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/7/14. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CURTIS RENEE JACKSON,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
Y. A. YATES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00080-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION TO RE-OPEN
DISCOVERY AS TO CLAIM AGAINST
DEFENDANT SAMONTE, AND SUBMIT
STATUS REPORT
(ECF No. 127)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF THIRTY (30) DAYS TO
SUBMIT STATUS REPORT AS TO CLAIM
AGAINST DEFENDANT SAMONTE TO REOPEN DISCOVERY
(ECF No. 128)

22

I.

Background

23

Plaintiff Curtis Renee Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

24

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil

25

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

26

On May 30, 2012, the Court found a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant

27

Mendez for excessive force and against Defendants Daley, Samonte, Nichols, Valdez, and Gonzales

28

for failure to intervene. Defendants Gonzales, Mendez and Nichols answered Plaintiff’s second
1

1

amended complaint on November 16, 2012, and the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order

2

on November 27, 2012.
On January 15, 2014, a summons was returned unexecuted for Defendant Samonte. Following

3
4

receipt of information from Plaintiff, the Court issued a second order directing the United States

5

Marshal to serve Defendant Samonte on March 6, 2014.
On March 10, 2014, Defendants Daley and Valdez filed an answer to the second amended

6
7

complaint. Following a request for status and a motion by Plaintiff, the Court extended the discovery

8

deadline to May 12, 2014, solely to permit Plaintiff to file a motion for a third-party subpoena. The

9

Court also extended the dispositive motion deadline to July 24, 2014.

10

After expiration of the discovery deadline, Defendant Samonte filed an answer to the second

11

amended complaint on May 29, 2014. As Defendant Samonte is part of the same incident at issue in

12

this action, on June 2, 2014, the Court directed the parties to file a status report within twenty-one (21)

13

days addressing what, if any, additional discovery was necessary related to the claim against

14

Defendant Samonte.
On June 12, 2014, Defendants filed a status report indicating that no additional discovery was

15
16

necessary as to the claim against Defendant Samonte or for Defendant Samonte to prepare and file a

17

motion for summary judgment by the current deadline of July 24, 2014. (ECF No. 124.) Plaintiff did

18

not file a status report in response to the Court’s order.
On July 2, 2014, the Court found that no further discovery was necessary regarding the claim

19
20

against Defendant Samonte and declined to re-open discovery. (ECF No. 126.)
On July 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration as to the Court’s order declining

21
22

to re-open discovery. (ECF No. 127.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for a thirty-day extension of time to

23

submit a status report. The motion was dated June 14, 2014. (ECF No. 128.)
Defendants did not file any response and the motions are deemed submitted. Local Rule

24
25

230(l).

26

II.

27

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

28

Discussion

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

part and reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.1987). Additionally, pursuant to this

9

Court’s Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party must show what “new or

10

different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such

11

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j).

12

In seeking reconsideration, Plaintiff states that he submitted a motion for an extension of time

13

to submit his status report and believed it would be granted or denied. Plaintiff explains that he has

14

submitted a copy of the motion for an extension of time. Presumably, Plaintiff’s motion for an

15

extension of time, which is dated June 14, 2014, is the motion referenced in Plaintiff’s moving papers.

16

The motion for extension of time merely states that Plaintiff needed more time to prepare the status

17

report and to access the law library. (ECF No. 128, pp. 1-2.)

18

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and his motion for an

19

extension of time, but does not find any basis to reverse its prior decision or grant an extension of

20

time. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration does not identify or even suggest the nature of any further

21

discovery he might need with regard to the claim against Defendant Samonte. In other words, Plaintiff

22

has not identified any basis for reconsideration of the Court’s decision.

23

Although Plaintiff requested additional time for law library access, Plaintiff does not require

24

law library access to determine what additional facts, evidence or documents are needed from

25

Defendant Samonte that were not available to him through prior discovery related to the same

26

incident. In short, Plaintiff has not presented good cause for an extension of time. However, to the

27

extent Plaintiff requires additional discovery to oppose Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, he

28

is not precluded from filing a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).
3

1

III.

2

For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

3

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration to re-open discovery as to claim against Defendant
Samonte, filed on July 14, 2014, is DENIED; and

4
5

Conclusion and Order

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a status report as to claim against
Defendant Samonte, filed on July 14, 2014, is DENIED.

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

August 7, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4