Grimes v. Biter, et al.

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING 20 Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/2/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

JOSEPH GRIMES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
BITER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13cv00393 DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
(Document 20)

16

Plaintiff Joseph Grimes (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis, filed this civil rights action on March 18, 2013.1 Pursuant to Court order, Plaintiff filed

19

a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on December 2, 2013. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended

20

Complaint (“SAC”) as of right on March 13, 2014.

21
22

On August 13, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s SAC and dismissed it without leave to
amend.

23

On August 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to
24
25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on June 3, 2013.
1

1
2
3
4

DISCUSSION
“A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) ‘should not be granted, absent highly
unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” McDowell v.

5

Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1254 (9th Cir.1999) (internal citation omitted).
6
7
8
9
10

In this case, the Court screened Plaintiff’s original complaint and explained why his
allegations were deficient. Plaintiff was provided with the legal standards for an Eighth
Amendment claim and was given an opportunity to amend.
Plaintiff filed his FAC on December 2, 2013. On February 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a

11

motion to file an amended complaint, stating that he had not clearly stated a claim in the prior

12

complaint. Plaintiff also explained that he was transferred “and different lay persons cause

13

different and difficultly helping.” ECF No. 14, at 2. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request on

14

February 14, 2014. Plaintiff filed his SAC on March 13, 2014.

15
16
17
18

On August 13, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s SAC and found that despite the
Court’s prior instructions, Plaintiff had not alleged facts to state an Eighth amendment claim.
In Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment, he first states that he “assumed” the
Magistrate Judge would take into consideration his literacy, communication skills, educational

19

level and litigation experience. ECF No. 20, at 1. Inherent in the screening process, however, is
20
21
22
23
24

the recognition that Plaintiff is pro se and likely not an experienced litigator. While the Court is
lenient with a pro se plaintiff, it does not alter the requirement that a plaintiff must allege
sufficient facts to state a claim under the applicable legal standards. Moreover, the Court had no
difficulty understanding Plaintiff’s allegations.

25

Plaintiff also requests another opportunity to amend because he now has legal assistance

26

from a jailhouse lawyer. However, Plaintiff has had two opportunities to amend after receiving

27

the initial screening order that set forth why his factual allegations were insufficient. That

28
2

1
2
3
4
5

Plaintiff may now have a jailhouse lawyer is not grounds to reopen this action. Plaintiff’s SAC
was dismissed because he did not state adequate factual allegations despite explanation as to why
his facts were deficient. In other words, it is unclear how further assistance can create adequate
factual allegations and the Court will not reopen the action on this basis.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

September 2, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3