Jones v. Washington et al

Filing 89

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 88 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

MALIK JONES,

5
6

Plaintiff,
v.

7

L. WASHINGTON, et al.,

8

Defendants.
________________________________/

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. C 09-3003 CW
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE
A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
AND MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff Malik Jones, a state prisoner currently

11
incarcerated at High Desert State Prison (HDSP), filed this pro se
12
13

civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that

14

Defendants L. Washington, D. Lang, B. Brown, E. Contreras, and E.

15

Ramirez violated his Eighth Amendment rights during his transfer

16

from Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) to HDSP on July 7, 2006.

17

The Court found cognizable Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for

18

excessive force and deliberate indifference to medical needs

19

against above named Defendants.

20
On September 23, 2011, the Court granted Defendants’ motion
21
22

to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative

23

remedies as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

24

dismissed Plaintiff’s motions to file a supplemental complaint and

25

denied injunctive relief because the complaints addressed in those

26

motions were not related to the events at issue in this case.

27
28

The Court also

Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants that same date.

1

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave

2

to file a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil

3

Procedure 60(b).

4
5
6

DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
Where the district court's ruling has resulted in a final

7
judgment or order, a motion for reconsideration may be based on
8
9

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

See Am.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Ironworks & Erectors v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99

11

(9th Cir. 2001).

12

one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence,

13

surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which

14

by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court's

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where

15
decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is
16
void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason
17
18

justifying relief.

19

ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

20

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v.

Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or

21

freely granted; they are not a substitute for appeal or a means of

22

attacking some perceived error of the court.

23

See Twentieth

Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir.

24
1981).

"'[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration involve

25
26

an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new

27

evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest

28

injustice.'"

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882
2

1

F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Desert

2

Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)).

3

B. Analysis

4

In the present motion, Plaintiff requests that

5
6

reconsideration be granted and the judgment of dismissal vacated
because the Court misinterpreted the evidence presented by the

7
parties in support of and in opposition to the motion to dismiss.
8
9

First, Plaintiff maintains the Court overlooked or

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

misinterpreted evidence that he attempted to exhaust his

11

administrative remedies.

12

conclusion that the claims raised in his motion for injunctive

13

relief and his motion to file a supplemental complaint are

14

unrelated to the claims in the instant case.

Second, Plaintiff challenges the Court’s

15
Plaintiff's arguments were raised in his opposition to the
16
motion to dismiss and discussed by the Court in the order granting
17
18

that motion.

19

ruling, he has presented no evidence or legal argument that

20

warrants reconsideration.

21

Court wrongly determined that he did not attempt to challenge the

22

screening of his administrative appeal by prison officials. This

23

Although Plaintiff disagrees with the Court's

argument is without merit.

Further, Plaintiff contends that the

The Court found that Plaintiff did not

24
comply with the applicable requirements when he sent his
25
26

administrative appeal directly to Warden Evans rather than mailing

27

or submitting it to an appeals coordinator.

28

found that Plaintiff had not followed the explicit instructions
3

Further, the Court

1

provided on the screening form for challenging the screening

2

decision.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Specifically, the Court found as follows:

Both the screening form that was returned to
Plaintiff, and the regulations in effect at the
time, require that appeals be sent to the appeals
coordinator within fifteen days of the incident.
Medina Dec., Ex. B; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15,
§ 3084.2(c)(2006). Plaintiff did not comply with
the applicable requirements when he sent his appeal
directly to Warden Evans rather than mailing or
submitting it to an appeals coordinator. There is
nothing to contradict Defendants' contention that
the appeal was sent to the appeals coordinator after
the fifteen day limit had expired.
Moreover, the screening document included an
instruction to Plaintiff to write an explanation if
he did not feel that the reason given for screening
the complaint was accurate. Medina Dec., Ex. B.
While Plaintiff wrote on a subsequent Form 602 that
the denial of his appeal as untimely showed "blatant
biasness (sic) toward my appeal," he never claims to
have submitted the appeal timely. The record shows
no explanation of how prison authorities exhibited
bias towards his appeal or why his appeal should not
have been screened as untimely. Compl. Attach. 6.
Because SVSP-C-06-02436 was properly screened and
Plaintiff had further remedies available, he is not
entitled to an exception to the exhaustion
requirement.
Docket no. 86 at 8:11-9:4
Plaintiff did not argue in his opposition, nor does he here,
that he followed the procedures on the screening form.
Plaintiff's arguments for reconsideration of his motion to
file a supplemental complaint and motion for injunctive relief are

24
likewise without merit.

Plaintiff alleged that prison staff at

25
HDSP continue to be indifferent to his medical needs.

While in

26
27

the instant motion he does refer to claims that he was denied

28

medical treatment in July 2006, the motions mentioned above were
4

1

concerned with more recent events.

2

that prison officials at HDSP took away his wheelchair and were

3

denying him medication.

4

case, which concerns the incident that took place on July 7, 2006

5

while Plaintiff was being transferred from SVSP to HDSP.

6

Specifically Plaintiff alleged

These allegations are separate from this

In its order the Court suggested that Plaintiff could pursue

7
relief for his recent complaints either under the terms of the
8
9

Armstrong decree, if appropriate, or by filing a new and separate

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

action after he had exhausted administrative remedies.

11

no. 96 at 13:16-21).

12

(9th Cir. 1997).

13

judgment should reconsidered.

14

(Docket

reconsideration is DENIED.

See Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1020

Plaintiff has shown no cause why the Court's
Accordingly Plaintiff's motion for

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: 11/1/2011

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5