Briones v. Pleasant Valley State Prison et al
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 52 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/23/17. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHNNY G. BRIONES,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
(ECF NO. 52)
R. HAND, et al.,
Johnny G. Briones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
commencing this action on May 19, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) On August 19, 2016, defendants Cole,
Hendricks, and Hand filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. (ECF No. 45.) On
September 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed non-opposition to the motion, stating that he would not be able
to oppose the motion to dismiss in a timely manner. (ECF No. 48.) Therefore, on September 12,
2016, the Court dismissed the case, without prejudice. (ECF No. 49.)
On December 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Examine Administrative Exhaustion
in Connection with Plaintiff’s Current Complaint.” (ECF No. 52.) The Court construed this as a
motion to reconsider its order dismissing the case, and found that Plaintiff failed to show that he
was entitled to reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (ECF No. 53.)
However, instead of denying the motion to reconsider, the Court gave Plaintiff the opportunity to
“submit medical records showing the severity of his condition, including any medical
documentation indicating why he might have difficulty communicating, and/or any medical
records showing that he was in the hospital or under the care of a physician at the time he was
required to oppose the motion to dismiss.” (Id. at p. 3.) (emphasis added).
On February 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed his evidence. (ECF No. 54.) However, Plaintiff
failed to address the issue he was required to address. Instead of providing evidence showing
why he was unable to respond to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff provided evidence that addresses
only the issue of exhaustion. Plaintiff did not submit any medical documentation indicating why
he might have difficulty communicating, and instead of providing medical records that show that
“he was in the hospital or under the care of a physician at the time he was required to oppose the
motion to dismiss,” (ECF No. 53, p. 3) (emphasis added), he filed medical records showing that
he was in the hospital at the time he was required to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to “submit medical records showing the severity of his
condition, including any medical documentation indicating why he might have difficulty
communicating, and/or any medical records showing that he was in the hospital or under the care
of a physician at the time he was required to oppose the motion to dismiss,” (Id. at p. 3),
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
February 23, 2017
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?