(PC) Taylor v. Carbullido et al

Filing 80

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 02/02/2024 DENYING 75 Motion to Reopen Case.(Lopez, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Kenneth Lee Taylor,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:19-cv-02550-KJM-CKD
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
J. Carbullido, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Kenneth Lee Taylor moves the court to reopen this case and consider his

18

objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. The court denies the motion.

19

On October 6, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations. F. & R.,

20

ECF No. 71. Neither party filed objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen

21

days, as provided for in the order. On December 21, 2023, the court adopted the findings and

22

recommendations, granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s access to the

23

courts claim and closed the case. See Prior Order, ECF No. 72.

24

Plaintiff has now filed a motion to reopen the case. Mot., ECF No. 75. Plaintiff argues he

25

submitted his objections to the findings and recommendations to the prison law library staff for

26

copying on October 19, 2023, and therefore, met his filing deadline. Id. at 1. Plaintiff has also

27

submitted his objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Objs., ECF

1

1

No. 76. Defendants have filed an omnibus response to plaintiff’s motion, Opp’n, ECF No. 78,

2

and plaintiff has filed an opposition to the omnibus response, Reply, ECF No. 79.

3

A prisoner’s filing is considered filed at the moment it is delivered to prison officials for

4

forwarding to the court clerk. See Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.2001). Here,

5

plaintiff declares he submitted his objections to the prison law library staff for copying and

6

processing. Mot. at 1; Reply at 1, Reply Ex. A. It is unclear if he delivered objections to prison

7

officers for forwarding to the clerk’s office. In any case, the court considers the motion and

8

objections as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e)

9

because the motion was filed within 28 days of the entry of final judgment. See Am. Ironworks &

10
11

Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898–99 (9th Cir. 2001).
Under Rule 59(e), “[r]econsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented

12

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

13

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

14

Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). This court’s local rules also

15

govern reconsideration. They require the moving party to provide “what new or different facts or

16

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown” or “what other grounds

17

exist for the motion” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior

18

motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j).

19

Plaintiff argues the fact that he submitted his objections to the prison officials for copying

20

and processing is new evidence and also argues the court committed clear error in deciding to

21

grant summary judgment in favor of defendants and close the case. Reply at 3. To rely on new

22

evidence, plaintiff must show three things: 1) the timing of the filing of the objections constitutes

23

“newly discovered evidence”; 2) plaintiff “exercised ‘due diligence’ to discover this evidence”;

24

and 3) the newly discovered evidence is of “such magnitude that production of it earlier would

25

have been likely to change the disposition of the case.” Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor

26

Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir. 1987).

27

Here, plaintiff’s purported “new evidence” is not newly discovered evidence within the

28

meaning of Rule 59(e). The objections and evidence he relies on were available at the time of
2

1

summary judgment. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

2

1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The overwhelming weight of authority is that the failure to file documents

3

in an original motion or opposition does not turn the late filed documents into ‘newly discovered

4

evidence.’”). Moreover, the objections do not change the disposition of the case for the same

5

reason the court finds there was no clear error.

6

“Clear error occurs when ‘the reviewing court on the entire record is left with the definite

7

and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist.,

8

727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395

9

(1948)). Having considered plaintiff’s objections, the court finds there was no error, let alone

10

clear error in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants.

11

Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,

12

346 (1996). “The right of access to courts has been found to encompass the right to talk in person

13

and on the telephone with counsel in confidential settings[.]” Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978,

14

999 (9th Cir. 2007), vacated on other grounds, 556 U.S. 1256 (2009). To prevail on an access to

15

the courts claim, an inmate must show actual injury. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349. This element is

16

jurisdictional and derives from the doctrine of standing. Id. “[A]n inmate cannot establish

17

relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison’s law library or legal assistance

18

program is subpar in some theoretical sense.” Id. at 351. It also cannot be met by “just any type

19

of frustrated legal claim.” Id. at 354. Rather, plaintiff must show defendants “hindered his

20

efforts to pursue a [nonfrivolous] legal claim.” Phillips v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir.

21

2007), vacated on other grounds, 555 U.S. 1150 (2009) (quoting Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351–53 &

22

n.3). For example, a plaintiff may be able to show actual injury by showing some kind of

23

interference resulting in an inability to file a complaint or bring a claim, meet a filing deadline, or

24

dismissal of a case. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348–51.

25

Here, plaintiff has not shown a one-time denial of a confidential phone call with an

26

attorney he had not yet retained resulted in actual injury. Plaintiff does not explain how the

27

denial of the phone call prejudiced him nor has he provided facts to show he sustained an injury.

28

It is unclear how this one incident prevented him from bringing a nonfrivolous claim or caused
3

1

him to miss a filing deadline or otherwise hindered meaningful access to the courts. See Mungia

2

v. Sheriff's Dep’t, No. 21-1641, 2022 WL 183373, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2022) (plaintiff who

3

did not indicate how “one denial of communication with his lawyer prejudiced him” and did not

4

include “facts demonstrating he sustained an actual injury from this one-time deprivation” failed

5

to state a claim); cf. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348–51. Because plaintiff has not shown actual injury, he

6

does not have standing. There are no material facts in dispute and the magistrate judge correctly

7

recommended granting summary judgment in defendants’ favor. The motion to reopen the case is

8

denied.

9
10
11

This order resolves ECF No. 75.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 2, 2024.

12

4