Cyprian v. Givens et al

Filing 84

ORDER denying 74 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 12/8/11. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

LAWRENCE CYPRIAN,

11
12

Plaintiff,

No. 2:09-cv-2704 JAM JFM (PC)

vs.

13

DERRICK GIVENS, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

17

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of this court’s July 22, 2011

18

order adopting in full findings and recommendations filed by the magistrate judge on June 8,

19

2011 and granting defendant Newman’s December 7, 2010 motion for summary judgment.

20

The court granted defendant Newman’s motion for summary judgment on the

21

grounds that (1) defendant Newman was a private attorney appointed to represent plaintiff in

22

state criminal proceedings and there was no evidence that defendant Newman conspired with any

23

state actor to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights; and (2) the jury at plaintiff’s criminal

24

trial deadlocked 9-3 in favor of acquittal and the charges were subsequently dismissed. Plaintiff

25

seeks reconsideration on the ground that he should have been given an opportunity to conduct

26

discovery principally to uncover evidence of a possible conspiracy between defendant Newman
1

1

and other state actors. Plaintiff also raises arguments concerning defendant Newman’s decision

2

not to have a second handwriting expert examine a note that led to the discovery of the weapon

3

and the criminal charges against plaintiff, which plaintiff contends was written by defendant

4

Givens.

5

As noted above, the charges against plaintiff were dismissed after the jury

6

deadlocked 9-3 in favor of acquittal. Plaintiff did not suffer any cognizable harm as a result of

7

any act or omission by defendant Newman, and he has not shown any basis for reconsideration of

8

the grant of summary judgment in defendant Newman’s favor. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Local

9

Rule 230(j) (E.D.Cal.).

10

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 11,

11

2011 motion for reconsideration is denied.

12

DATED: December 8, 2011

13

/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2