(PC) Ruiz v. Woodfill
Filing
32
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 10/16/2020 DENYING 30 Motion for Reconsideration. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROGELIO MAY RUIZ,
12
No. 2:19-cv-2118 MCE KJN P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
D. WOODFILL,
15
ORDER
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff moves the court to reconsider its decision of September 3, 2020 order dismissing
18
plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against defendant Woodfill. (ECF No. 26.)
19
Plaintiff asserts that he stated a retaliation claim against defendant because Woodfill “acted in
20
vengeance when he told plaintiff you are ‘piece of shit’ is clear” that Woodfill referred to
21
plaintiff’s conviction. (ECF No. 30 at 1.)
22
Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, Frito–
23
Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981), considerations of
24
judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party
25
seeking reconsideration of a district court’s order must brief the “new or different facts or
26
circumstances [which] were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for
27
the motion.” Id. The rule derives from the “law of the case” doctrine which provides that the
28
decisions on legal issues made in a case “should be followed unless there is substantially different
1
1
evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would
2
result in injustice.” Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir.1981);
3
see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1064
4
(1986).
5
Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the alteration or
6
amendment of a judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle permitting the
7
unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present “contentions which
8
might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F. Supp.
9
1003, 1009 (C.D.Cal.1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986);
10
Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa.1991). These holdings
11
“reflect[ ] district courts’ concerns for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial
12
efficiency.” Costello, 765 F. Supp. at 1009.
13
Plaintiff’s new claim that defendant’s wrongful actions against plaintiff were based on
14
plaintiff’s conviction does not constitute conduct on the part of plaintiff that is protected under the
15
First Amendment.1 Thus, plaintiff fails to identify new or different facts or circumstances that
16
warrant reconsideration of the court’s order.
17
18
19
20
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF
No. 30) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 16, 2020
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison officials and to be
free from retaliation for doing so.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing
Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009)). A viable retaliation claim in the prison
context has five elements: “(1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an
inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the
inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a
legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005).
2
1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?