Riley v. Grieco et al

Filing 24

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING, IN PART, 23 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2014)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

Plaintiff,

7
8

Case No.: C 13-4410 CW (PR)

SHANNON RILEY,

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.

Doc. no. 23

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS GRIECO
and COLLIER, CORRECTIONAL
SERGEANT SANCHEZ and WARDEN
GROUNDS,

12

Defendants.

13
14

On September 23, 2013, Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley

15

State Prison (SVSP), filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant

16

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that correctional officers at SVSP

17

violated his constitutional rights.

18

Court issued an Order Serving Cognizable Claims and Denying

19

Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement his Complaint, in which he sought

20

to add Lieutenant Stevenson and Sergeant Jimenez as defendants.

21

See Doc. no. 13.

22

motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59 of the Federal

23

Rules of Civil Procedure.

24

been entered in this case, the Court construes this as a motion

25

for reconsideration of an interlocutory order under Civil Local

26

Rule 7-9.

27
28

On January 14, 2014, the

On January 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant

See Doc. 23.

Because judgment has not

A party may file a motion for reconsideration only after
obtaining leave to do so from the Court.

Civil L.R. 7-9(a).

1

Reconsideration should be granted only where there has been an

2

intervening change of law or fact, new evidence or authority not

3

previously available in the exercise of reasonable diligence has

4

been discovered, or a manifest failure by the district court to

5

consider material facts or legal arguments presented before the

6

Court issued the challenged interlocutory order.

7

9(b); School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Co. v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d

8

1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Civil L.R. 7-9(b).

9

action may not relitigate issues previously decided in a case

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

absent a compelling reason for reconsideration.

11

Civil L.R. 7-

Parties to an

9(c).

12

Civil L.R. 7-

In the January 14, 2014 Order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s

13

motion to add Lt. Stevenson and Sgt. Jimenez as defendants on the

14

grounds that the claims against them were not cognizable and were

15

unexhausted.

16

not cognizable because Plaintiff has no constitutional right to be

17

found innocent of disciplinary charges.

18

noted that there is a procedural due process right to receive a

19

written statement of the disciplinary decision.

20

Doc. no. 13 at 12.

The Court found the claims were

Id.

However, the Court

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that the

21

Court misunderstood the allegations he asserted against Lt.

22

Stevenson and Sgt. Jimenez.

23

procedural due process claims against them.

24

Stevenson issued Plaintiff’s written decision finding Plaintiff

25

guilty of a rules violation without citing the evidence on which

26

he based his finding.

27

additional penalties of television restrictions against Plaintiff

He clarifies that he is bringing
He alleges that Lt.

He alleges that Sgt. Jimenez assessed

28
2

1

without first reading Lt. Stevenson’s disciplinary decision.

2

Plaintiff acknowledges that both claims remain unexhausted.

3

It is possible the Court misconstrued the allegations

4

Petitioner presented in his motion to supplement the complaint.

5

However, at this time, the Court will not decide whether the

6

claims are cognizable.

7

Lt. Henderson and Sgt. Jimenez once he exhausts his administrative

8

remedies against them.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff may file a new complaint against

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is granted,
in part.

11

CONCLUSION

12

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

13

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is granted, in

14

part.

Plaintiff may file a new complaint against these

15

individuals when he exhausts administrative remedies against them.

16

At that time, the Court will consider whether Plaintiff’s claims

17

are cognizable.

18

2. This Order terminates docket number 23.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated:

2/3/2014

____________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3