Morales v. Cribbs et al

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING 13 Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/9/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSELUIS MORALES,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

KAREN CRIBBS, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:13-cv-00591 DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
(Document 13)

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Joseluis Morales (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on March 8, 2013, in the United States

19

District Court for the Northern District of California. The action was transferred to this Court on

20

April 24, 2013.1
On May 23, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) without

21
22

leave to amend and entered judgment.
Plaintiff filed the instant motion to alter or amend the judgment on June 25, 2014.2 Plaintiff

23
24

contends that the Court made clear errors or law and fact in dismissing his FAC.

25
26

28

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on May 28, 2013.

2

27

The motion was signed on June 15, 2014, making it timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

1

1

DISCUSSION

2

“A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) ‘should not be granted, absent highly

3

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

4

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

1.

7

In the order finding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim, the Court determined that Plaintiff

Access to Courts

8

failed to show that the lack of a treaty publication was the proximate cause of the denial of his

9

habeas petition. The Court explained, in part:

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff has been incarcerated since 1999. He states that he learned of the treaty
issue in October 2008, and tried to research it before immediately filing a state habeas
petition. Plaintiff filed a federal habeas action in June 2009 and it was denied as time-barred
in July 2011. There cannot be a finding of proximate cause when, for the first nine years of
Plaintiff’s incarceration, the law library did not have materials on a claim that he did not
know existed.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiff’s motion is based on his belief that because the Treaty Convention on the Rights of
the Child has never been available in prison law libraries, he was prevented from discovering that
the treaty prohibited his trial as an adult for a first time juvenile defense. As a result, Plaintiff
contends that he suffered an actual injury because he could not raise the claim.
Plaintiff’s argument is unavailing. While Plaintiff may disagree with the Court’s ruling, the
Court did not commit clear error. The Court understands Plaintiff’s argument that without the treaty,
he could not have discovered the potential claims. However, as the Court explained, there cannot be
a finding of proximate cause when a period of nine years had passed.
As to Plaintiff’s access to the court claim related to his claim of actual innocence, the Court
determined that his claims were based on general law library deficiencies, and that such deficiencies
alone do not state a claim for relief. In this motion, however, Plaintiff fails to present any arguments
that were not addressed by the Court in the prior order.

27
28
2

1

2.

2

The Court found that Plaintiff failed to allege a sufficient link between Defendants Cate and

3
4

Defendants Cate and Doe

Doe and the alleged law library deficiencies.
In his motion, Plaintiff continues to cite to their “fiduciary duty” to create and carry out

5

prison regulations. The Court addressed this argument in the order dismissing his complaint, and it

6

need not do so again here. The fact remains that Plaintiff fails to show that Defendants Cate and

7

Doe “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent

8

them,” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989), and he cannot state a claim against them.

9

3.

Retaliation

10

As with Plaintiff’s prior claims for relief, the Court found that his allegations were too

11

general to demonstrate that adverse actions were taken because of his protected conduct. Plaintiff’s

12

circumstantial evidence was based simply on his theory that the appeals were improperly screened

13

out because of his challenge related to the treaty issue. The Court also explained that

14

although Plaintiff may disagree with the appeal decisions, it does not necessarily mean that the

15

decisions were either improper or made in bad faith.

16

In this motion, Plaintiff contends that the screen outs were “pretextual” because he was

17

following the regulations in filing the treaty appeal, and that the warning to discontinue frivolous

18

appeals had a chilling effect. The Court does not disagree that a warning can have a chilling effect,

19

but Plaintiff’s connection between his appeal and the adverse action continues to be insufficient.

20
21

ORDER
Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the May 23, 2014, judgment is DENIED.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

July 9, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
3