Giraldes v. Beard

Filing 75

ORDER denying 74 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 05/22/17. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LARRY GIRALDES, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-1780 CKD P

v.

ORDER

JEFFREY BEARD,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

This prisoner civil rights action was dismissed as mooted by a prison policy change on

19

May 3, 2017. (ECF No. 72.) Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the

20

judgment. (ECF No. 74.) Although plaintiff was represented by counsel in this action, the court

21

considers plaintiff’s pro se, post-judgment motion.

22

A district court1 may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23

59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

24

1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with

25

newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

26

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263. Here, plaintiff

27
28

1

Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings
in this action. (ECF Nos. 3 & 12.)
1

1

presents evidence that he was found ineligible for conjugal visits on March 15, 2017. (ECF No.

2

74 at 74.) However, there is no evidence he exhausted administrative remedies as to this denial.

3

Moreover, the denial does not appear to be based on the former policy of categorically excluding

4

life inmates without a parole date. The same is true for plaintiff’s May 11, 2017 request for

5

conjugal visits, denied on May 15, 2017. (Id. at 76-77.) Neither denial suggests plaintiff’s

6

religious rights were violated as initially alleged in this action. Thus the court’s decision to

7

dismiss this action without prejudice was not clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust.

8
9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF
No. 74) is denied.
Dated: May 22, 2017

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16

2 / gira1780.R60

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2