Holston v. Warstler

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/22/15 ORDERING that Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 11 ) is DENIED.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THERON HOLSTON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-0981 AC P

v.

ORDER

DANIEL WARSTLER,

15

Defendants.

16
On June 6, 2015,1 plaintiff Theron Holston, pro se, filed a motion for reconsideration of

17
18

this court’s June 2, 2015 order, ECF No. 7, denying plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining

19

order regarding enforcement of two parole conditions related to plaintiff’s GPS tracking device.

20

Plaintiff asserts that in denying plaintiff’s motion, the court misunderstood plaintiff’s underlying

21

claim for relief. ECF No. 11 at 1-3. Plaintiff also offers new information related to his claim of

22

irreparable harm. Id. at 4-5. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff’s motion for

23

reconsideration is denied.
District courts have wide discretion to consider and vacate a prior order. See Navajo

24
25

Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th

26

Cir.2003). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

27

1

This motion was filed by the clerk on June 15, 2015. ECF No. 11.

28
1

1

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

2

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,

3

Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks

4

omitted & alteration in original). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a

5

disagreement with the [c]ourt's decision, and recapitulation ... of that which was already

6

considered by the [c]ourt in rendering its decision.” Le v. Sandor, No. 14–01464, 2014 WL

7

5305894, at *1 (E.D.Cal. Oct. 15, 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, in this

8

district, a motion for reconsideration is governed by Local Rule 230(j), which requires a party to

9

set forth, among other things, “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did

10

not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

11

Local Rule 230(j)(3).

12

Plaintiff first argues that in assessing the likelihood of success on the merits, the court

13

misunderstood the allegations of plaintiff’s underlying complaint. Specifically, plaintiff explains

14

that his claim is that defendant Parole Unit Supervisor Warstler’s ongoing failure to comply with

15

the order of the El Dorado Superior Court violates plaintiff’s due process rights.2 ECF No. 11 at

16

2. Plaintiff then goes on to assert that he is challenging the “enforcement of [parole] conditions

17

No. 44 and 45 without compliance with the El Dorado court order to include places to charge the

18

GPS unit.” Id. Based on these allegations, the court understands plaintiff to challenge both the

19

failure to comply with the superior court’s order and the enforcement of parole conditions No. 44

20

and No. 45 in the absence of compliance with the superior court order. In either case, plaintiff is

21

seeking defendant’s compliance with the Superior Court’s order. Such relief must be obtained in

22

and through the state courts.

23

Plaintiff’s argument does not cure the initial defect in plaintiff’s motion for a temporary

24

restraining order, which is that the record remains too undeveloped to permit determination

25

whether plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the underlying complaint.3 Accordingly,

26

2

27
28

The superior court order directed “[p]arole to review [plaintiff’s parole] conditions to include
places to charge the GPS unit.” ECF No. 6 at 37.
3
The court notes that plaintiff is no longer incarcerated and that the court’s concerns regarding
(continued…)
2

1

plaintiff’s attempt to reframe his claims does not provide grounds to grant plaintiff’s motion for

2

reconsideration.

3

Plaintiff next takes issue with the court’s analysis of whether plaintiff is likely to suffer

4

irreparable harm in the absence of immediate injunctive relief. In finding that the likelihood of

5

irreparable harm was speculative, the court observed in its June 2, 2015 order that plaintiff had

6

not alleged that he had suffered harm, such as an arrest or criminal charge, when he engaged in

7

“criminal activities” such as prowling or trespassing while searching for a place to charge his

8

GPS. ECF No. 7 at 5-6. In his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff now clarifies that he has

9

suffered this type of harm in the past, and argues that he is likely to suffer the same harm in the

10

future. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that the reason he was initially contacted by the sheriff on

11

March 31, 2015 was because the sheriff received a report of a prowler. ECF No. 11 at 4-5. On

12

that day, plaintiff was outside of a K-mart looking for an electrical outlet. Id. He found an outlet

13

and charged his GPS device for approximately fifteen minutes. Id. at 5. He then came into

14

contact with the sheriff about ten to twenty minutes later and was subsequently arrested. Id.

15

Even assuming that the above allegations qualify as newly discovered evidence and that

16

plaintiff was arrested because he was prowling (rather than because he violated his parole by

17

failing to charge his GPS),4 the link between these allegations and plaintiff’s request for

18

injunctive relief remains attenuated. In his motion for a temporary restraining order, plaintiff

19

requests that the court enjoin defendant “from continuing to impose and enforce special

20

conditions of parole (No. 44) and (No. 45) . . . without identifying places to charge the GPS unit.”

21

ECF No. 5 at 2. Even if the requested relief were granted, plaintiff would still not have a place to

22

charge his GPS device. Thus, his risk of being arrested or charged with a criminal act such as

23
24
25
26
27

the Heck bar, set forth in the court’s June 2, 2015 order, might no longer be applicable. See Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) (holding that a prisoner may not pursue a claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 where a judgment favoring plaintiff “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his
conviction or sentence.” However, even assuming plaintiff’s claim is not barred by Heck, the
record remains undeveloped.
4
The exhibits attached to plaintiff’s complaint suggest that he was arrested on March 31, 2015
for violating his parole. See ECF No. 6 at 35.

28
3

1

prowling while searching for a place to charge his GPS device would remain unchanged.

2

Accordingly, plaintiff’s new allegations do not change the court’s analysis.

3

Finally, plaintiff argues that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a

4

temporary restraining order because it is “an established fact” that defendant will arrest plaintiff

5

“for noncompliance with the [GPS] charging requirement.” ECF No. 11 at 5. This issue was

6

already addressed in the court’s June 2, 2015 order. See ECF No. 7 at 6. Plaintiff’s disagreement

7

with the court’s prior order does not provide grounds to grant his motion for reconsideration. See

8

Espinosa v. California, No. 2:14-CV-2881-KJM-GGH, 2014 WL 7409432, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec.

9

30, 2014) (internal citations omitted).

10
11

Because plaintiff has not satisfied any of the grounds for a motion for reconsideration,
plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

12

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 11) is denied.

14

DATED: June 22, 2015

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4