Crim v. Management & Training Corp. et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Second Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Screening Order, With Prejudice 23 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/3/14. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN MICHAEL CRIM,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

vs.
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORP.,
et al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
COURT’S SCREENING ORDER, WITH
PREJUDICE
(Doc. 23.)

Defendants.

16
17

1:12-cv-1340-AWI-GSA-PC

I.

BACKGROUND

18

John Michael Crim (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se. This action was

19

initiated by civil Complaint filed by Plaintiff in the Kern County Superior Court on June 12,

20

2012 (Case #S-1500-CV-276883-WDP). (Doc. 2-2 at 8-30.) On August 16, 2012, defendants

21

Management & Training Corp., Adler, Stewart, Mann, Patrick, Logan, McBride, and Sy

22

(“Removing Defendants”) removed the case to federal court by filing a Notice of Removal

23

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (federal question). (Doc. 1.)

24

The court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A and entered an order on

25

November 19, 2013, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to file an

26

amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 20.) On December 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a

27

response to the court’s screening order, which the court construed as a motion for

28

reconsideration of the screening order. (Doc. 21.) On December 17, 2013, the court denied the
1

1

motion for reconsideration and ordered Plaintiff to comply with the screening order within

2

thirty days. (Doc. 22.)

3

On January 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a second response to the court’s screening order,

4

which the court construes as a second motion for reconsideration of the screening order. (Doc.

5

23.)

6

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

7

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

8

justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent

9

manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist.

10

Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation

11

omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his

12

control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of

13

an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or

14

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

15

motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

16

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

17

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

18

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,

19

Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations

20

marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a

21

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already

22

considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134

23

F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a

24

strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare

25

Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and

26

reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

27

///

28

///
2

1

III.

DISCUSSION

2

Plaintiff argues that, based on this court’s rulings in Plaintiff’s related cases, this court

3

lacks jurisdiction to order Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and should remand the case to

4

the superior court. Plaintiff alternatively argues that “if this court insists it has jurisdiction,” the

5

court may not properly move sua sponte for dismissal, because defendants are the proper party

6

to raise issues of the questionable merits of the case. (Motion, Doc. 23 at 1.) Plaintiff also

7

argues that a Bivens action may be brought against a contract prison facility; that a claim of

8

constitutional right violation is a cognizable claim; that the term “state” encompasses a federal

9

action taken under the color of federal law; that liability under § 1983 may ensue even though

10

the person sued has no intent to deprive the plaintiff of a federal right; and that the term

11

“government” is defined as any other person “acting under color of law.” (Id. at ¶¶2-6.)

12

In the screening order of November 19, 2013, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint

13

for failure to state a cognizable access-to-courts claim because Plaintiff failed to show that

14

deficiencies in his prison’s law library caused him “actual injury” as defined by the Supreme

15

Court in Casey v. Lewis, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). Plaintiff fails to address this issue. With

16

respect to Plaintiff’s request for the court to remand this case to the superior court, this issue

17

was resolved by the court’s order of March 22, 2013, which denied Plaintiff’s prior request for

18

remand. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff’s arguments do not appear to address any of the analysis found in

19

the screening order. Plaintiff has not presented any new evidence to the court, notified the

20

court of an intervening change in the controlling law, nor shown that the court committed clear

21

error. Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court

22

to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration shall be denied,

23

with prejudice.

24

As Plaintiff was previously advised, if he disagrees with the court’s screening order, his

25

remedy at this stage of the proceedings is to file a First Amended Complaint clearly and

26

succinctly stating the allegations and claims upon which he wishes to proceed. Plaintiff was

27

forewarned in the screening order that if he does not file an amended complaint, the court will

28

///
3

1

recommend that this case be dismissed with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 20 at 5

2

¶5.)

3

IV.

CONCLUSION

4

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second motion for

5

reconsideration of the court’s screening order, filed on January 2, 2014, is DENIED, with

6

prejudice.

7
8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

12
13
14

January 3, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4