Payne v. Cate et al

Filing 29

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/4/2015 DENYING plaintiff's 18 motion for reconsideration. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MYRON A. PAYNE,

12
13
14

No. 2:12-cv-0243 DAD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

MATTHEW CATE et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. Pending before the

18

court is plaintiff‟s motion for reconsideration of the court‟s order screening his amended

19

complaint.

20

BACKGROUND

21

In this case, plaintiff‟s primary claim presented in his amended complaint is that

22

defendants improperly validated him as a gang member of the Black Guerilla Family while he

23

was incarcerated at High Desert State Prison. In its screening order, the court found that

24

plaintiff‟s amended complaint appeared to state cognizable claims for relief against defendants

25

Peddicord, Griffith, Vanderville, Armoskus, Brackett, St. Andre, Fischer, Kissel, Perez,

26

Cochrane, Kots, and Runnels in connection with his allegedly erroneous gang validation. The

27

court also found, however, that plaintiff‟s amended complaint did not state cognizable claims for

28

relief against supervisory defendants Cate, Tilton, Felker, Audette, Wright, and Gower or against
1

1

defendants Audette, Wright, and Gower for the way in which they processed plaintiff‟s inmate

2

appeals. (Doc. No. 16)

3
4

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The court has considered plaintiff‟s motion for reconsideration and will deny it. “[A]

5

motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the

6

district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an

7

intervening change in the controlling law.” Kona Enterprises v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877,

8

890 (9th Cir. 2000). Using a motion for reconsideration to reargue the points the court rejected in

9

the original order is improper. See American Ironworks & Erectors v. North American

10

Construction Corporation, 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001). A party cannot have relief merely

11

because he or she is unhappy with the judgment. See Khan v. Fasano, 194 F. Supp. 2d 1134,

12

1136 (S.D. Cal. 2001).

13

Nonetheless, the court has reviewed plaintiff‟s amended complaint once again. As to the

14

court‟s screening order with respect to supervisory defendants Cate, Tilton, Felker, Audette,

15

Wright, and Gower, as the court previously advised plaintiff, supervisory personnel are generally

16

not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior

17

and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between

18

him and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Starr v. Baca, 652

19

F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (supervisory defendant may be held liable under § 1983 only “„if

20

there exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a

21

sufficient causal connection between the supervisor‟s wrongful conduct and the constitutional

22

violation.‟”) (quoting Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)). In his amended

23

complaint, plaintiff‟s allegations concerning the involvement of these supervisory defendants in

24

his gang validation are too speculative and attenuated and do not set forth specific facts upon

25

which liability could be based. In this regard, plaintiff has failed to adequately allege the

26

requisite causal link between these supervisory defendants and the alleged violation of his

27

constitutional rights. Although plaintiff clearly disagrees with the court‟s decision to not order

28

service of his complaint on these defendants, plaintiff has not demonstrated that the court
2

1

committed clear error or that he is otherwise entitled to reconsideration of the court‟s screening

2

order.

3

Similarly, as to the court‟s order with respect to defendants Audette, Wright, and Gower,

4

as the court previously advised plaintiff, prison officials are not required under federal law to

5

process inmate grievances in a specific way or to respond to them in a favorable manner. Even if

6

defendants delayed, denied, or erroneously screened out plaintiff‟s inmate grievances, they have

7

not deprived him of a federal constitutional right. This is because it is well established that

8

“inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.”

9

Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640

10

(9th Cir. 1988)). The allegations in plaintiff‟s amended complaint that these defendants failed to

11

provide him with a more substantive review of his gang validation during the inmate appeals

12

process are simply too vague and conclusory to state cognizable claims for relief. Again,

13

although plaintiff clearly disagrees with the court‟s decision to not order service of his complaint

14

on these defendants, plaintiff has not demonstrated that the court committed clear error or that he

15

is otherwise entitled to reconsideration of the court‟s screening order.

16
17

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff‟s motion for reconsideration (Doc.

18

No. 18) is denied.

19

Dated: February 4, 2015

20
21
22
23

DAD:9
payn0243.motr

24
25
26
27
28
3