Winffel v. Pomazal, et al

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/17/13 DENYING 54 Motion for Reconsideration. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ALBERTO WINFFEL,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. 2:10-cv-1002 JAM EFB P

POMAZAL, et al.,

14
15
16

Defendants.

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under

17

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 3, 2013, the court dismissed this action because plaintiff failed to

18

exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit, and judgment was duly entered. On

19

May 17, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing his case.

20

Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or

21

different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon

22

such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or

23

circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal., Local Rule 230(j)(3)-

24

(4); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (setting forth grounds for relief from judgment).

25
26

Plaintiff’s motion includes a document dated August 28, 2009, stating that (1) an
appeal he submitted was screened out as duplicative, and (2) that if he believed the screening was

1

improper, he should return the form and his appeal to the Health Care Appeals Officer. As

2

defendants note in their opposition, plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the screened out appeal

3

relates to the claim giving rise to this lawsuit or that he returned the form for further processing

4

as instructed.

5

Plaintiff also argues that no administrative remedies are available to an inmate

6

seeking monetary damages. Even when a prisoner seeks monetary damages, however,

7

exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to suit. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516,

8

524 (2002).

9

Through his request for reconsideration, plaintiff fails to demonstrate any new or

10

different facts or circumstances that entitle him to reconsideration of the order of dismissal or to

11

relief from judgment.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 17, 2013 motion for

13

reconsideration is DENIED.

14

DATED: June 17, 2013

15
16

/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2