Riley v. Tallerico et al
Filing
28
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 25 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 5/10/17. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
SHANNON RILEY,
13
Plaintiff,
14
v.
1:16-cv-01189-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ECF NO. 25)
15
TALLERICO, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19
Shannon Riley (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
20
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 24, 2017, the Court screened
21
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 24). The Court found the following cognizable
22
claims: a claim against Officer Yerry for violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to
23
equal protection related to the May 16, 2015 incident; a claim for retaliation in violation of the
24
First Amendment against Officers Dyer and Huckleberry regarding their cell search; a claim
25
against Defendant Tallerico for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and a claim
26
against Officer Yerry for violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at 10). The Court found no
27
other claims against these defendants or against any other defendants. (Id.).
28
On May 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed what the Court construes as a motion to reconsider its
1
1
2
screening order.1 (ECF No. 25).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs grounds for relief from an order:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been
satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment
that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no
longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
11
Plaintiff has failed to show any of the above-mentioned reasons. Plaintiff describes
12
various facts he believes the Court overlooked, and includes legal standards Plaintiff apparently
13
believes the Court should have considered but did not.
14
Plaintiff’s motion, its screening order, and the Third Amended Complaint, and the Court did not
15
overlook any factual allegations in the Third Amended Complaint or make a mistake regarding
16
the applicable legal standards or their application.
However, the Court has reviewed
17
Plaintiff’s motion also includes additional factual allegations, a declaration, and a new
18
claim. Plaintiff’s motion specifies what property was taken from him, and has attached as Exhibit
19
A a declaration from inmate David Harring that describes what David Harring saw in regards to
20
Plaintiff’s property being taken. Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion attempts to assert a new claim
21
for conspiracy.
22
A motion for reconsideration is not the appropriate way to add factual allegations and a
23
new claim to a complaint. If Plaintiff wishes to add additional factual allegations and a claim for
24
conspiracy to his complaint, he needs to file a motion for leave to amend his complaint.
25
The Court notes that if Plaintiff does file a motion for leave to amend his complaint, and if
26
the Court grants that motion, the amended complaint will be screened in due course. This may
27
28
1
Plaintiff filed his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), but no judgment has been
entered in this case.
2
1
2
3
result in delay to the claims already found cognizable.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 10, 2017
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
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?