Arias-Maldonado v. Sisto et al

Filing 72

ORDER signed by District Judge J. Michael Seabright on 4/12/11 ORDERING that plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate Two Co-Defendants' Names 60 is DENIED. (Becknal, R)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAIME ARIAS-MALDONADO,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
D.K. SISTO, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

Civ. No. 02:08-00216 JMS/BMK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REINSTATE TWO CODEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REINSTATE TWO CODEFENDANTS
On August 4, 2008, pro se prisoner Jaime Arias-Maldonado
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging claims pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections (“CDCR”),
D.K. Sisto, N. Grannis, V.D. Brumsfield, Cpt. Arthur, K. Kesterson, M.D. Corioso,
S. Cervantes, and J. Boyden for: (1) transferring Plaintiff to another facility on the
basis of his race; (2) lack of access to the courts; and (3) failure to process his
grievances. The magistrate judge subsequently recommended that the SAC be
dismissed with prejudice, and Plaintiff objected. On November 4, 2009, this court
rejected the magistrate judge’s recommendations in part and found that the SAC
stated a claim for damages against Defendants Brunsfield, Arthur, and Kesterson
based on Plaintiff’s allegation that they transferred Plaintiff to another facility due

to race (“the November 4, 2009 Order”). See Doc. No. 26.
On January 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Reinstate Two CoDefendants’ Names,” which this court construes as a motion seeking
reconsideration of the November 4, 2009 Order. Plaintiff asserts that he previously
named the Director of Corrections and the Appeals Coordinator in his SAC, and
Plaintiff explains that these individuals did not timely respond to his grievances
about being transferred to Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility
(“Tallahatchie”). Although not entirely clear, Plaintiff further appears to assert that
he became ill at Tallahatchie due to the temperature of his cell and that Defendants
are liable for a deliberate indifference to his health in violation of the Eighth
Amendment.
Plaintiff’s Motion lacks merit. As an initial matter, Plaintiff offers no
valid basis for the court to reconsider the November 4, 2009 Order. Generally
stated, reconsideration is appropriate where there has been an intervening change
in controlling law, new evidence has become available, or it is necessary to correct
clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of
Colusa Indian Cmty. v. California, 649 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
(citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(k). Motions to reconsider are
“not vehicles permitting the unsuccessful party to ‘rehash’ arguments previously

2

presented,” United States v. Navarro, 972 F. Supp. 1296, 1299 (E.D.Cal. 1997),
rev’d on other grounds, 160 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 1998), and a party may not use a
motion for reconsideration to raise arguments or present new evidence for the first
time when it could reasonably have been raised earlier. Carroll v. Nakatani, 342
F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff appears to simply rehash arguments
previously rejected by the court, and he does not base his request on any
intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or assertion that the
November 4, 2009 Order was in error.
Further, even turning to the merits of Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff did
not assert any claims against the “Director of Corrections” or the “Appeals
Coordinator” in his SAC. More important, however, is that a prisoner does not
have a “claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure,” Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d
639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988), and therefore the Director of Corrections’ and/or the
Appeals Coordinator’s involvement in addressing Plaintiff’s administrative
grievances cannot form the basis of a claim. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605,
609-10 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Only persons who cause or participate in [constitutional]
violations are responsible. Ruling against a prisoner on an administrative
complaint does not cause or contribute to the violation. A guard who stands and
watches while another guard beats a prisoner violates the Constitution; a guard
who rejects an administrative complaint about a completed act of misconduct does

3

not.”); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (“[A prison]
grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive
right upon the inmates.”). Finally, as to Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants
somehow violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights, the SAC included no such
allegations and they are therefore not part of this action.1
In sum, Plaintiff offers no legally cognizable basis to state a claim
against either the Director of Corrections or the Appeals Coordinator. The court
therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate Two Co-Defendants’ Names.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 12, 2011.

/s/ J. Michael Seabright
_____________________________
J. Michael Seabright
United States District Judge

Arias-Maldonado v. Sisto, Civ. No. 2:08-00216 JMS/BMK, Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to
Reinstate Two Co-Defendants

1

To the extent Plaintiff’s Motion could be construed as seeking to amend the SAC,
Plaintiff offers no good cause for why the SAC should be amended and such request would
therefore be denied.
4