Polk v. Godina et al

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 16 Request for Permission to File Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/15/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

) 1:12-cv-01094-LJO- BAM (PC)
)
Plaintiff,
) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
) REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO FILE
v.
) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
)
GODINA, et al.,
) (ECF No. 16)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
______________________________________________________________________________
SUSAN MAE POLK,

13

I.

Background

14

Plaintiff Susan Mae Polk (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

15

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed an

16

application for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction to require Defendant

17

Matthew Cate and prison officials at California Institution for Women (“CIW”) to provide her

18

access to her legal materials. (ECF No. 10.) On November 28, 2012, the Magistrate Judge

19

issued findings and recommendations that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction be

20

denied. The Magistrate Judge determined as follows: (1) Plaintiff could not state a claim against

21

Defendant Matthew Cate in his supervisory position with the California Department of

22

Corrections of Rehabilitation; and (2) Plaintiff did not have standing to pursue injunctive relief

23

against prison officials at CIW because her claims in this action related solely to prison officials

24

at Valley State Prison for Women. (ECF No. 11.)

25

On December 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

26

Plaintiff raised arguments challenging the Magistrate Judge’s determinations regarding

27

supervisory liability and standing. (ECF No. 13. pp. 3-6.)

28
1

Following consideration of Plaintiff’s objections, the Court adopted the findings and

1
2

recommendations in full on December 12, 2012. (ECF No. 15.)

3

On December 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting permission to file a

4

motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 16.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as one for

5

reconsideration.

6

II.

7

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

Discussion

8

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

9

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to

10

raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been

11

raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571

12

F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in

13

original).

14
15
16
17

Plaintiff does not argue that newly discovered evidence or an intervening change of the
law requires reconsideration. Instead, Plaintiff again argues that she has stated a claim against
Defendant Cate based on his supervisory position and that she has standing to pursue her
injunctive relief against officials at CIW. (ECF No. 16, pp. 3-4.) Plaintiff’s continued assertions

18
reflect a mere disagreement with the findings of the Court. This is not sufficient to grant a
19
motion for reconsideration.
20
III.
21

Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for

22
reconsideration, filed December 26, 2012, is DENIED.
23
24

b9ed48bb

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

May 15, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb
2