Stewart Manago v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 40

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 33 37 Motions for Alteration of Judgment/Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 4/10/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
STEWART MANAGO,
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01269-SMS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR ALTERATION OF
JUDGMENT/RECONSIDERATION

12
GONZALES, et al

(Docs. 33, 37)

13
Defendants.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff, Stewart Mango, (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner who is currently proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the
Complaint on August 1, 2011. (Doc. 1.) It was screened and dismissed with leave to amend for
failure to state a cognizable claim (“the Screening Order”). (Doc. 29.) Subsequent to screening
and dismissal of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 20) was
denied for lack of jurisdiction and his motion requesting an order directing CCI prison officials to
make copies of his index of evidence (Doc. 21) was denied as moot. (Doc. 30.) Plaintiff then
filed a motion (Doc. 33) for alteration of judgment on the Screening Order (Doc. 29) and a second
motion (Doc. 37) on the order which denied his requests for preliminary injunction and for copies
of his index of evidence (Doc. 30). The orders that Plaintiff attacks are not judgments subject to
alteration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Both of these motions are properly
construed as motions for reconsideration.

28
1

1

Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies

2

relief. Rule 60(b)(6) Ais to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice

3

and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .@ exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531

4

F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party

5

Amust demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .@ Id. (internal quotation

6

marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 78-230(k)

7

requires Plaintiff to show Awhat new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which

8

did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the

9

motion.@

10

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

11

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

12

there is an intervening change in the controlling law.@ Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos

13

Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations

14

omitted). AA party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court=s

15

decision, and recapitulation . . . @ of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering

16

its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).

17

The basis for Plaintiff=s motion for reconsideration of the Screening Order (“First

18

Motion”) is his disagreement with the Court=s screening decision and application of the law to his

19

Complaint. Plaintiff has not shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief and has

20

therefore not met his burden as the party moving for reconsideration. Marlyn Nutraceuticals,

21

Inc., 571 F.3d at 880. Plaintiff=s disagreement is not sufficient grounds for relief from the

22

Screening Order. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d at 1131.

23

Further, in his First Motion, Plaintiff requests that, since he has filed an amended

24

complaint and cured the deficiencies in his original pleading, an order issue “to show cause on

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction, and other [sic] that CCI prison officials make copies of
Plaintiff’s index evidence, to be send [sic] to this court, because index evidence is the evidence in
support of said motion for preliminary injunction.” (Doc. 33, p. 4.) Thus, it appears that though
Plaintiff directed the First Motion to the Screening Order in the caption, he actually intended for it

2

1

to challenge the order denying both preliminary injunctive relief and copies of his index evidence.

2

Regardless which of order his First Motion was directed, Plaintiff fails to show newly discovered

3

evidence, clear error, or an intervening change of controlling law upon which his First Motion

4

might be granted.
In his motion (Doc. 37) (“Second Motion”) on the Order which denied his requests for

5
6

preliminary injunction and for copies of his index of evidence (Doc. 30), Plaintiff seeks the same

7

relief as that he requested in his request for preliminary injunction: (1) expungement from his

8

“C” File of the false, unreliable, and insufficient information used to validate his active

9

association with the Black Gorilla Family (“BGF”) prison gang; (2) that he be transferred to a

10

medical facility to receive proper mental health treatment for the sexual harassment and sexual

11

assault he sustained; (3) that CDCR officials be prohibited from transferring Plaintiff to another

12

prison where he might be placed in unlawful danger by Green-Wall members and/or Inmate Task

13

Force (“ITF”) inmates within CDCR; (4) that CDCR staff be prohibited from reading any of

14

Plaintiff’s “confidential legal materials” relating to pending litigation without a court order to do

15

so; and (5) that Defendants be ordered to cease their threats and retaliatory acts toward Plaintiff.

16

(Doc. 20, TRO, 7:4-8:8; Doc. 37, Mot for Alteration, pp. 1-2.)
In the Second Motion, Plaintiff states the danger of his circumstance being a member of

17
18

one gang who is validated as a member of an enemy gang (parallel to the allegations in his

19

pleadings) and reiterates holdings of a number of cases – none of which amount to intervening

20

change of controlling law. Plaintiff fails to show clear error or other meritorious grounds for

21

relief and has therefore not met his burden as the party moving for reconsideration. Marlyn

22

Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880. As previously stated, Plaintiff=s mere disagreement with the

23

ruling is not sufficient grounds for reconsideration. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d at

24

1131.

25
26
27
28

Further, the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance
of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure
the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.
Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). In a declaration in response to an order to show cause why

3

1

this action is not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Plaintiff indicated that the

2

injunctive relief he seeks regarding his false prison gang validation is that it be removed from his

3

C-File concerning BGF status after he proves his case and wins in the trial of this matter.1 (Doc.

4

39, Resp. to OSC, p. 16.) Thus, it appears that Plaintiff intends to seek expungment of the

5

allegedly false gang validation from his C-File after full adjudication of this action, rather than

6

via preliminary injunction. As addressed in the Order to Show Cause (Doc. 38), if Plaintiff were

7

to obtain expungment during the pendency of this action and if such expungment necessitated his

8

earlier release (as implied by the allegations in the First Amended Complaint), this action would

9

be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

10

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Alteration of

11

Judgment, filed January 7, 2013 (Doc. 33) and January 17, 2013 (Doc. 37), are DENIED.

12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Dated:

14

April 10, 2013

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

15
16

icido34h

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

The Court may take judicial notice of court records. United States v. 14.02 Acres of Land More or Less in Fresno
County, 547 F.3d 943, 955 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876, n.1 (9th Cir. 2004).

28
4