Yearwood v. Biter et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying 19 Objections motion for reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/10/2012. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 RICARDO YEARWOOD, 9 10 CASE NO.1:11-cv-00132-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. (DOC. 19) 11 M. D. BITER, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 / 14 15 Plaintiff Ricardo Yearwood (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 16 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 4, 2012, the 18 Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and dismissed the action for failure to state a 19 claim, and judgment was entered accordingly. Doc. 17. On January 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed a 20 document entitled “Order Objecting to the Judge’s Recommendation of Dismissal Subject to the 21 Three Strikes Provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and For Failing to State A Claim.” Because the 22 motion was filed within twenty-eight days after the issuance of the judgment, the motion is 23 properly construed as pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 24 25 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 26 27 1 28 Plaintiff appealed the January 4, 2012 judgment on March 5, 2012. The matter is held in abeyance pending adjudication of this motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B). 1 1 prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law. 2 3 Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). “Since specific grounds for a 4 motion to amend or alter are not listed in the rule, the district court enjoys considerable discretion 5 in granting or denying the motion.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 6 1999) (en banc) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Amending a judgment after its 7 entry remains “an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Id. (internal quotation 8 marks omitted). This Court’s Local Rule 230(j) requires a party seeking reconsideration to 9 demonstrate “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not 10 exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion . . . 11 and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” 12 The Court had screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint and found that 1) Plaintiff’s 13 allegations against Defendants Yates and Kushner amounted at most to respondeat superior 14 liability, 2) Plaintiff failed to allege any facts that link Defendant Biter to a violation under § 15 1983, and 3) his claims against Defendants Moonga, Zamora, and Arnet amount at most to a 16 difference of opinion between Plaintiff and medical professionals regarding treatment. Plaintiff 17 contends in his motion that the Court erred because he stated a claim, or in the alternative, he 18 should be granted additional leave to amend. Plaintiff presents no new arguments that merit 19 reconsideration. 20 21 22 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections, construed as a Rule 59(e) motion, are denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: 3b142a May 10, 2012 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 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?