Miles v. California Correctional Health Care Services

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/16/2017 ORDERING 10 Objections be construed as Motion for Reconsideration and DENYING 10 Motion for Reconsideration. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT F. MILES,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:16-cv-1323 KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL
HEALTH CARE SERVICES,
Defendant.

17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff consented to proceed

19

before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On December 5, 2016, this

20

action was dismissed without prejudice based on plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate standing to sue

21

in federal court. In response, plaintiff filed a document styled, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

22

Findings and Recommendations,” and provided numerous exhibits. The undersigned construes

23

plaintiff’s objections as a request for reconsideration of this court’s December 5, 2016 order.

24

Legal Standards

25

Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, Frito-Lay

26

of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981), considerations of

27

judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party

28
1

1

seeking reconsideration of a court’s order must brief the “new or different facts or circumstances

2

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

3

“[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,

4

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if

5

there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos

6

Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted).

7

Discussion

8

In the objections, plaintiff reiterates his claim that prison officials’ failure to encrypt the

9

information on the stolen laptop violates various prison regulations and state laws. However, as

10

the court previously explained, any violation of state tort law, state regulations, rules and policies

11

of the department of corrections, or other state law is not sufficient to state a claim for relief under

12

§ 1983. (ECF No. 8 at 5.) Absent a cognizable civil rights claim, the court declines to exercise

13

supplemental jurisdiction over any putative state law claim. (ECF No. 8 at 6.)

14

Plaintiff also claims that it was his intention to name individuals as defendants rather than

15

the state agencies named in his pleading, and also claims he was not required to exhaust

16

administrative remedies. However, the instant action was not dismissed based on an alleged

17

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Moreover, while the undersigned found plaintiff

18

named improper defendants, the court noted that even assuming plaintiff could substitute

19

appropriate individuals as defendants, “the speculative allegations of the pleading still fail to

20

establish that plaintiff has standing because he cannot show an injury-in-fact.” (ECF No. 8 at 4.)

21

Plaintiff’s objections again fail to demonstrate plaintiff suffered an actual injury sufficient

22

to provide plaintiff standing. Because it is unknown whether plaintiff’s sensitive information was

23

compromised, he cannot state a claim for relief based on such “speculative breach of his sensitive

24

information.” (ECF No. 8 at 5.) Therefore, plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to

25

reconsideration of the December 5, 2016 order.

26

////

27

////

28

////
2

1

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 10) are construed as a motion for reconsideration; and

3

2. Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 10) is denied.

4

Dated: June 16, 2017

5
6
7
/mile1323.rec

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3