Bowell v. Montoya et al

Filing 50

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That Defendants' 48 Motion to Set Aside Court's Order be Granted, and Plaintiff's 49 Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order be Denied as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/12/19. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES BOWELL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:17-cv-00605-LJO-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO SET ASIDE COURT’S
ORDER BE GRANTED, AND
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S
ORDER BE DENIED AS MOOT
(ECF Nos. 48, 49.)

vs.
F. MONTOYA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

17
18
19
20
21

I.

BACKGROUND
James Bowell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

22

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s First Amended

23

Complaint filed on May 3, 2018, against Defendants Montoya and Carter for violation of due

24

process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and against Defendants Killmer and Lopez for

25

conspiracy to place Plaintiff at risk of serious harm and for failure to protect Plaintiff under the

26

Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 16.)1

27
28

1

On October 25, 2018, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from
this case, for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 20.)

1

On January 10, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for an order revoking Plaintiff’s in

2

forma pauperis status based on his accumulation of “three strikes” under U.S.C. § 1915(g).

3

(ECF No. 24.)

4

recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted. (ECF No. 39.) On May 1, 2019, the

5

district court adopted the findings and recommendations granting Defendants’ motion to revoke

6

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and requiring Plaintiff to pay the $398.00 balance of the

7

filing fee for this case, within thirty days. (ECF No. 42.) On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff requested

8

a 120-day extension of time to pay the filing fee which was granted by the court on June 4,

9

2019. (ECF. Nos. 45, 47.) To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee.

On April 12, 2019, the court entered findings and recommendations,

10

On August 27, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to set aside the court’s May 1, 2019

11

order in light of a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Harris v. Harris, No. 16-

12

55083, 2019 WL 3938883 (9th Cir. Aug 21, 2019). (ECF No. 48.) On September 3, 2019,

13

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the May 1, 2019 order. (ECF No. 49.)

14

II.

HARRIS V. HARRIS

15

On August 21, 2019, in Harris v. Harris, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that

16

the dismissal of a prior action after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state

17

law claims did not qualify as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Harris, 2019 WL 3938883,

18

at *3. The Court reasoned that because “[d]ismissal based on a district court’s decision not to

19

exercise supplemental jurisdiction is not an enumerated ground under § 1915(g),” a dismissal

20

on a ground other than frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim will not qualify

21

as a strike. Id. (quoting Fourstar v. Garden City Grp., Inc., 875 F.3d 1147, 1152 (D.C. Cir

22

2017). Thus, “[u]nless an incarcerated litigant has accrued three strikes on grounds plainly

23

enumerated in § 1915(g), she is entitled to IFP status.” Harris, 2019 WL 3938883, at *5.

24

III.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE COURT’S ORDER

25

Based on the decision in Harris, Defendants request the court to set aside its May 1,

26

2019 order revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. Defendants concede that one of the

27

three cases identified by Defendants as a basis for revoking Plaintiff’s IFP status, Bowell v.

28

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran, E.D. Cal. 1:10-cv-02336-AWI-

1

DLB, no longer qualifies as a strike under Harris because the district court dismissed the case

2

and declined supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s attendant state-law claims. In light of

3

Harris, Defendants assert that it no longer appears that Plaintiff accrued three or more strikes

4

prior to bringing this action. Accordingly, Defendants request the court to “set aside its order

5

revoking Plaintiff’s IFP status under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

6

which allows a final order to be set aside for any reason that ‘justifies relief.’” (ECF No. 48 at

7

3 ¶ II.) Defendants also request that the court allow them 21 days from its order on this motion

8

to file a responsive pleading.

9

IV.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

10

A.

11

Plaintiff brings a motion for reconsideration of the May 1, 2019 order revoking his in

12

Motion for Reconsideration

forma pauperis status.

13

Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that

14

justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent

15

manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist.

16

Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation

17

omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his

18

control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of

19

an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or

20

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior

21

motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

22

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

23

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

24

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,

25

Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation

26

marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a

27

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already

28

considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134

1

F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a

2

strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare

3

Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and

4

reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

5

Plaintiff asserts that the alleged strike against him by the United States Supreme Court

6

in Bowell v. Smith, 14-6326, is not a strike because the dismissal in that case was simply for

7

failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

8

Plaintiff requests 120 days before discovery is opened or trial is scheduled in this case

9

to obtain his release from custody pursuant to his habeas corpus petitions, and to hire a law firm

10

team.

11

VI.

DISCUSSION

12

The recent decision in Harris is an intervening change in the controlling law deciding

13

when the dismissal of a case qualifies as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). It is evident that

14

under the new law Defendants cannot show that Plaintiff accrued three strikes before filing this

15

case. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to set aside the court’s order should be granted and the

16

May 1, 2019 order revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should be vacated. In light of

17

that decision, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration should be denied as moot. The court

18

should also reinstate its May 16, 2017 order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma

19

pauperis. Good cause appearing, the court shall recommend that Defendants be granted 21

20

days from the date of service of this order to file a responsive pleading, and Plaintiff be allowed

21

120 days before the court opens discovery in this case.

22

VII.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

23

Based on the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

24

1.

25
26
27
28

Defendants’ motion to set aside the court’s order revoking Plaintiff’s in forma
pauperis status, filed on August 27, 2019, be GRANTED;

2.

The court’s order issued on May 1, 2019, revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis
status, be VACATED;

1

3.

2
3

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on September 3, 2019, be DENIED
as moot;

4.

4

The court’s order issued on May 16, 2017, granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in
forma pauperis in this case, be REINSTATED;

5

5.

Plaintiff be GRANTED leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case;

6

6.

Defendants be GRANTED twenty-one days from the date of service of this

7
8

order in which to file a pleading responsive to the complaint;
7.

9

Plaintiff be GRANTED one hundred-twenty days from the date of service of this
order before discovery is opened in this case; and

10

8.

11

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

12

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within

13

fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, any party

14

may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

15

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be

16

served and filed within ten days after the objections are filed. The parties are advised that

17

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

18

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

This case be REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 12, 2019

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE