Mundo v. Taylor, et al.
Filing
38
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 33 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/8/16. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JONATHAN W. MUNDO,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
No. 1:15-cv-01681-DAD-GSA
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
v.
A. TAYLOR, ARIAS, RAYBON, and
SAIGADO,
(Doc. No. 33)
Defendants.
17
18
19
Plaintiff Jonathan W. Mundo is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation. He filed this action on November 5, 2015. (Doc. No. 1.)
20
On May 18, 2016, the court screened plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint and found that
21
it stated a claim against defendants Taylor, Arias, Raybon and Salgado for deliberate indifference
22
to a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff
23
was ordered to either amend his complaint, or notify the court of his willingness to proceed only
24
on the Eighth Amendment/failure to protect claim that had been found to be cognizable. (Doc.
25
No. 29.) On June 15, 2016, plaintiff filed a fifth amended complaint, which is currently awaiting
26
screening. (Doc. No. 32.)
27
28
On January 22, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. No.
21.) Thereafter, on January 29, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
1
1
recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order be
2
denied on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant preliminary relief because no
3
operative complaint had been filed. (Doc. No. 24 at 2.) The assigned magistrate judge
4
alternatively recommended that plaintiff’s motion be denied because his previously dismissed
5
complaint presented a failure to protect claim stemming from an incident at Centinela State
6
Prison in 2015, while his motion for a temporary restraining order complained of verbal threats
7
and harassment in 2016 and sought relief aimed at his access to the prison library. Accordingly,
8
the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff “is not entitled to any relief that is not narrowly
9
drawn to correct the violation of his rights at issue in this action.” (Doc. No. 24 at 2.)1 On March
10
29, 2016, this court adopted the magistrate judge’s alternative recommendation and denied
11
plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 28 at 3.)
On August 12, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s March 29,
12
13
2016, order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 33.)
District courts “possess[] the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify
14
15
an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient.” City of L.A., Harbor Div. v. Santa
16
Monica Baykeeper, 254 F. 3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations and internal quotation marks
17
omitted). A motion for reconsideration, however, “should not be granted . . . unless the district
18
court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an
19
intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F. 3d 656,
20
665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F. 3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)).
21
Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the interests
22
of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.
23
3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel,
24
882 F. 2d 364 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he orderly administration of lengthy and complex litigation
25
such as this requires the finality of orders be reasonably certain.”).
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint filed February 10, 2016, stated similar claims as those
previously presented, all relating to an alleged failure to protect incident that occurring at
Centinela State Prison in 2015. (Doc. No. 26; see also Doc. No. 28 at 2.)
2
1
Here, plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the denial of his motion for temporary restraining
2
order because he has allegedly been subject to additional harassment since the March 29, 2016,
3
order denying the requested preliminary relief. (See Doc. No. 33 at 1.) Such allegations do not
4
entitle plaintiff to the requested preliminary relief in this action. As both the assigned magistrate
5
judge and the undersigned have explained to plaintiff, any request for equitable relief must be
6
sufficiently related to the claims pending before this court. This civil rights action relates to a
7
failure to protect claim arising from events which allegedly took place in 2015 at Centinela State
8
Prison. Plaintiff’s most recent allegations of harassment at his current institution of confinement
9
made in both his motion for temporary restraining order and the instant motion for
10
reconsideration are not related in any way to the claim presented in this case.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 33) is therefore denied.
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 8, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?