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)

Download PDF
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

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?