Martin v. Hedgpeth et al
Filing
151
SEE DOCKET NO. 152 CORRECTED ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 137 Motion for Reconsideration ; finding as moot 148 Motion for Extension of Time to File (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
GEORGE MARTIN, H-90626,
Plaintiff(s),
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vs.
A. HEDGPETH, Warden, et al.,
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 12-3193 CRB (PR)
ORDER DENYING
SECOND MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Dkt. #137 & 148)
On May 14, 2015, the court granted summary judgment in
favor of defendants on plaintiff’s three remaining Eighth
Amendment medical claims – denial of adequate hypertension
medicine, denial of morning pain medication on December 29,
2011 and denial of effective eye wear – and judgment was
entered. After reviewing the papers and evidence submitted by
plaintiff and defendants, the court found that no reasonable jury
could find that defendants were deliberately indifferent to
plaintiff’s serious medical needs and that defendants were entitled
to qualified immunity because a reasonable doctor could have
believed that his conduct was lawful under the circumstances.
On June 5, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration
of the court’s May 14, 2015 order. The court directed defendants
to respond and, after reviewing the parties’ submissions, denied
1
the motion on June 24, 2015. The court specifically noted that
2
motions for reconsideration are not a substitute for appeal or a
3
means of attacking some perceived error of the court. See June
4
24, 2015 Order at 1 (citing Twentieth Century - Foc Film Corp. v.
5
Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981)).
6
On August 24, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for an
7
extension of time to file a notice of appeal, claiming that he had
8
not received a copy of the court’s June 24, 2015 order denying his
9
motion for reconsideration until August 4, 2015. On September
10
2, 2015, the court granted plaintiff’s motion and advised him that
11
he could “file a notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days of the
12
date of this order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5).”
13
On October 2, 2015, plaintiff instead filed a second motion
14
for reconsideration of the court’s May 14, 2015 order granting
15
defendants’ motion for summary judgment claiming “newly
16
discovered evidence.” The court directed defendants to respond
17
by no later than October 16, 2015, which they did. But plaintiff
18
replied that he could not read defendants’ response due to his
19
visual impairment and asked that the response be sent to him in a
20
larger type size. On November 4, 2015, the court ordered
21
defendants to serve plaintiff with a new copy of their response
22
using Times New Roman type size 16, as the court is using in this
23
order, within seven days. Defendants complied and, after some
24
not unexpected delay from plaintiff, plaintiff filed several related
25
and unrelated pleadings to his second motion for reconsideration.
26
Plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration (dkt. # 137) of
27
28
2
1
the court’s May 14, 2015 order granting defendants’ motion for
2
summary judgment is DENIED. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
3
60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the
4
following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or
5
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due
6
diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s
7
decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) voiding of the
8
judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; (6) any other reason
9
justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS
10
Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). But plaintiff does not
11
show why the proffered new evidence could not have been
12
discovered and presented before the court’s May 14, 2015
13
decision or, if it somehow could be considered by the court, why
14
it would compel a different result. See Carroll v. Nakatani, 342
15
F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (reconsideration is not a vehicle for
16
rehash arguments previously presented or to raise arguments or
17
present evidence that could have been raised earlier). There
18
simply is no showing that the evidence plaintiff has set forth at
19
this late hour may be considered by the court and would preclude
20
defendants of summary judgment and qualified immunity.
21
The clerk is instructed to terminate all pending motions as
22
moot (see dkt. #148) and close the file. No further motions for
23
reconsideration will be entertained in this matter.
24
SO ORDERED.
25
DATED: Dec. 22, 2015
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge
26
27
28
3
1
G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.12\Martin, G.12-3193.deny_2d_recon.wpd
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?