Lopez v. Parker et al

Filing 7

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

Download PDF
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

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?