Brown v. Iosacco et al

Filing 65

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING 64 LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WILLIAM E. BROWN,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Re: Dkt. No. 64

R. AMIS, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-00603-HSG

12
13

Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison, Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”), filed a

14

pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion

15

pursuant to Local Rule 7-9 for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s June 28,

16

2018 order. Dkt. No. 64.

17

On June 28, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s injunctive

18

relief claims, and denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds. Dkt.

19

No. 63. The Court denied Defendants’ summary judgment motion on the grounds that, in

20

Grievance No. PBSP-14-2313, Plaintiff exhausted his claim regarding the prison’s failure to grant

21

KAGE the same religious accommodations as prisoners of other religious beliefs, and that

22

Plaintiff was not required to appeal Grievance No. PBSP-14-2313 to a final level of review

23

because he was granted the relief sought at the second level of review. Dkt. No. 63 at 7–9. The

24

Court concluded it was therefore a disputed issue as to whether Plaintiff had exhausted his claims.

25

Id. at 9.

26

Defendants now seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the June 28, 2018 order

27

on the grounds that the order only addressed the denial of assembly claim against Defendant

28

Losacco, but failed to address whether Plaintiff had exhausted his claims against Defendants Amis

1

and Espinoza (denial of assembly and confiscation of documents). Dkt. No. 64 at 2–3.

2

Defendants argue that Grievance No. PBSP-14-2313, filed in September 2014, could not exhaust

3

the claims against Defendants Amis and Espinoza because Defendants Amis and Espinoza’s

4

allegedly unconstitutional actions took place in January 2015.

5

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9(a), before a party may file an interlocutory motion for

6

reconsideration, the party must first obtain leave of the court. N.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9(a). In doing so,

7

the moving party must specifically show one of the following:

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law
exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order
for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of
reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law
at the time of the interlocutory order; or
(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time
of such order; or
(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal
arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.

13

N.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9(b). The Court agrees that it did not consider the following dispositive legal

14

argument: whether Plaintiff has exhausted his claim that, in January 2015, Defendants Amis and

15

Espinoza violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights when they denied him and his group the right to

16

assemble and confiscated his group’s religious documents. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

17

Defendants leave to file a motion for reconsideration to address this particular legal argument.

18

Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Defendants shall file their motion for

19

reconsideration. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the dispositive motion no later than twenty-

20

eight (28) days after the dispositive motion is filed. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later

21

than fourteen (14) days after the date the opposition is filed. The motion shall be deemed

22

submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion.

23

This order terminates Dkt. No. 64.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

Dated: 8/7/2018
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

28
2