Lopez v. Parker et al

Filing 7

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 6 Motion for Reconsideration (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

HECTOR LOPEZ,

4
5

No. C 11-2682 SBA (pr)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
Docket no. 6

6
7

FRANCISCO JAQUEZ, et al.,
Defendant.
/

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

INTRODUCTION

On June 3, 2011, Plaintiff Hector Lopez, an inmate currently at Pelican Bay State

11

Prison (PBSP), filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging

12

constitutional rights violations while incarcerated at PBSP. On July 18, 2012, the Court

13

screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and dismissed it because Plaintiff

14

had failed to allege a cognizable claim.

15

On August 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed this motion for reconsideration. In his motion,

16

Plaintiff argues that the Court should have allowed him to file an amended complaint instead

17

of dismissing it without leave to amend and repeats most of the allegations he asserted in his

18

original complaint.

19

Where the court's ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order (e.g., after dismissal

20

or summary judgment motion), a motion for reconsideration may be based either on Rule

21

59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment) of

22

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Am. Ironworks & Erectors v. N. Am. Constr. Corp.,

23

248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently

24

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

25

perceived error of the court. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d

26

1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). “‘[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration involve an

27

intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct

28

a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel,

1
2

882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff’s arguments do not meet the requirements for reconsideration. The Court

3

dismissed his complaint without leave to amend because his allegations showed that

4

amendment would be futile. The fact that Plaintiff merely repeats these allegations in his

5

motion for reconsideration evidences that, if he had been given leave to amend, he would not

6

have been able to add allegations that would have stated a cognizable constitutional claim

7

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

8

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

9

This terminates Docket no. 6.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

DATED:

11/20/12
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
HECTOR LOPEZ,
4

Case Number: CV11-02682 SBA
Plaintiff,

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.

6
I PARKER et al,
7
Defendant.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on November 21, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said
envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.

13
14
15
16

Hector Lopez V-00109
Pelican Bay State Prison
P.O. Box 7500
Crescent City, CA 95531

17
Dated: November 21, 2012
18

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Lisa Clark, Deputy Clerk

19
20

L:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.11\Lopez2682.Recon Deny.wpd

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3