Wyatt v. Sundaram

Filing 64

ORDER Denying 59 Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/25/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICKY WYATT,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:15-cv-00895-DAD-SAB
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

SUNDARAM,
(Doc. No. 59)
Defendant.

16
17

On January 31, 2017, the undersigned issued an order declining to adopt the findings and

18

recommendations recommending plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status be revoked. (Doc. No. 42.)

19

On August 7, 2017, defendant filed a motion to reconsider on the basis of a recently-issued

20

decision in Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2017). (Doc. No. 59-1.)

21

Generally, a motion for reconsideration may be brought in three instances, including

22

“when there has been an intervening change of controlling law.” United States v. Westlands

23

Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Here, defendant maintains that the

24

decision in Harris represents an intervening change in controlling law, and justifies

25

reconsideration of the court’s January 31, 2017 order. In Harris, the Ninth Circuit held that

26

“when (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the

27

court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint, the

28

dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g).” 863 F.3d at 1143.
1

1

The holding in Harris is inapplicable here. Defendant contends that the dismissal in

2

Wyatt v. Johnson, Case No. 2:97-cv-01789 LKK GGH (E.D. Cal.), should be counted as one of

3

three strikes against plaintiff. The court in Wyatt v. Johnson, however, dismissed plaintiff’s

4

complaint with leave to amend because plaintiff had failed to indicate what relief he sought, not

5

because he failed to state a legally sufficient claim. (See Doc. Nos. 29-1 at 2; 31 at 4.) Thus, the

6

dismissal in Wyatt v. Johnson was a dismissal under Rule 8(a), which requires every pleading,

7

whether it states a legally sufficient claim or not, to contain “a demand for the relief sought.”

8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3). Rule 12(b)(6), on the other hand, concerns “the legal sufficiency of the

9

pleadings, not the appropriateness of the relief sought.” United States v. Maricopa Cty., 915 F.

10

Supp. 2d 1073, 1082 (D. Ariz. 2012); see also Traylor v. Avnet, Inc., No. CV-08-0918-PHX-FJM,

11

2008 WL 2945509, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 28, 2008) (“[F]ailure to specify relief to which a plaintiff

12

is entitled would not warrant dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).”) In

13

considering whether a complaint was dismissed for failing to state a claim under Rule 8 for

14

purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that the district

15

court must look at “the reasons underlying [the dismissal].” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106,

16

1109–10 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding that “a Rule 8(a) dismissal is [not] categorically included or

17

excluded from counting as a § 1915(g) ‘strike’”). In Wyatt v. Johnson, this court said nothing

18

about the legal sufficiency of plaintiff’s claims raised in his complaint, and it was not dismissed

19

because it failed to state a claim. (Doc. No. 29-2 at 5, 13–14.) Instead, it was dismissed because

20

plaintiff did not indicate what relief was sought.

21

Because the holding in Harris is inapposite here, defendant’s motion for reconsideration is

22

denied.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated:

September 25, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2