Arias v. Davey et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 9/2/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MARIO MARTINEZ ARIAS, 7 Case No. 15-cv-01857-JSC Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 D. DAVEY, et al., 10 Defendants. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 6, 9 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights complaint under 42 13 U.S.C. ' 1983 against his former and current wardens.1 He was granted leave to proceed in forma 14 pauperis in a separate order. (Dkt. No. 4.) After reviewing the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 15 1915A, the Court dismissed it without leave to amend because it did not state a cognizable claim 16 for relief. (Dkt. No. 3.) Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 6.) In addition, 17 he filed a notice of appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals has referred the appeal to this 18 Court for the limited purpose of determining whether pauper status should continue on appeal or 19 whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. (Dkt. No. 9.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). In the Northern District of California, Local Rule 7-9 allows for the filing of motions for 20 21 reconsideration only with respect to interlocutory orders made in a case prior to the entry of final 22 judgment. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). Therefore, a post-judgment motion for reconsideration is 23 construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) or a motion for relief from 24 judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff does not specify whether he seeks relief under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). The 25 26 motion is therefore construed as a motion under Rule 59(e) because the denial of a motion under 27 1 28 Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. No. 1 at 5.) 1 Rule 59(e) is construed as a denial of relief under Rule 60(b) as well. See McDowell v. Calderon, 2 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.3 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc). A motion to alter or amend 3 judgment under Rule 59(e) “‘should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless 4 the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is 5 an intervening change in the law.’” Id. at 1255. 6 Plaintiff does not indicate the provision of Rule 59(e) under which reconsideration is 7 warranted. Plaintiff alleges no newly discovered evidence, no clear error, and no intervening 8 change in the law. Rather, plaintiff argues that his rights under the California Code of Regulations 9 pertaining to the pursuit of prison administrative appeals are being violated. As explained in the dismissal order, the violation of state law is not grounds for relief under Section 1983. See West v. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). He states that the violation of his right to pursue administrative 12 appeals violates his right to due process, but the Court explained in the dismissal order that there is 13 no federal constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system. See Ramirez 14 v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff cites no authority indicating that the above 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conclusions are wrong, let alone clearly erroneous, nor does he show any other grounds for reconsideration. Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s conclusions in the dismissal order may be raised in his appeal, but are not grounds for reconsideration. See Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981) (motions for reconsideration are not a substitute for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court). Consequently, the motion for reconsideration (dkt. 6) is DENIED Pursuant to the referral from the United States Court of Appeals, this Court finds that the appeal is taken in good faith such that plaintiff’s pauper status may continue on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 9/2/15 ________________________ JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28 2

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?