Williams v. Hazel et al

Filing 39

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 37 MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2017) Modified on 12/1/2017 (vlkS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STEPHEN JEROME WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

10

E HAZEL, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
VACATE JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 37

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-01136-HSG

12
13

Plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Ironwood State Prison, filed this

14

pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants denied him access to

15

the courts. On September 25, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss and

16

dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. Dkt. Nos. 35 and 36. Final judgment was

17

entered that same day, and Plaintiff did not appeal. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion

18

titled “Motion to Vacate Judgment Rule 59(e) Fed. R. Civ. P.,” filed on October 16, 2017. Dkt.

19

No. 37. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

20
21

DISCUSSION
I.

Legal Standard

22

The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion to vacate judgment as a motion for reconsideration

23

under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such a motion “should not be granted,

24

absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered

25

evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the law.” McDowell v.

26

Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

27

Courts construing Rule 59(e) have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle permitting the

28

unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present “contentions which

1

might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F. Supp.

2

1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991) (citing cases). These holdings “reflect[ ] district courts’ concerns for

3

preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial efficiency.” Id.

4

II.

5

Analysis
Plaintiff argues that Court committed clear error in dismissing the amended complaint

6

without leave to amend because the Court mischaracterized his allegations and failed to liberally

7

construe the amended complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the Court should have liberally

8

construed his allegation that Defendants failed to locate and issue him his property in time for him

9

to meet his court deadline as alleging that Defendants deliberately withheld his property with the
intent of causing him to miss his deadline; that the Court erroneously applied an inapplicable

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

standard of “malicious intent” to an access to the court claim; and that Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S.

12

527 (1981), remains good law with respect to property deprivation that is neither random nor

13

unauthorized and that is undertaken without a hearing. Dkt. No. 37.

14

Plaintiff’s first argument is contradicted by the allegations in the amended complaint and

15

the attached exhibits. Specifically, Plaintiff now argues that his property was in the possession of

16

Defendants PBSP Officers Davis and Chandler, and that Defendants deliberately failed to issue

17

him his property in order to prevent him from accessing the courts. However, according to the

18

amended complaint and the attached exhibits, Officers Davis and Chandler came into possession

19

of Plaintiff’s property after the supposed filing deadline. Plaintiff’s property arrived at PBSP on

20

July 15, 2015, Dkt. No. 7 at 7, and Plaintiff had informed PBSP Officers Davis and Chandler that

21

he had a July 12, 2015 deadline, Dkt No. 7 at 4 and Dkt. No. 7-1 at 28 and 33. Even construed

22

liberally, the amended complaint alleged no facts that would plausibly support an inference that

23

PBSP Officers Davis and Chandler knew that Plaintiff had miscalculated his filing deadline, and

24

that they were deliberately withholding Plaintiff’s property so that he would miss the actual filing

25

deadline.

26

Plaintiff’s other two arguments were addressed and rejected in the Court’s Order Granting

27

Motions to Dismiss, see, e.g., Dkt. No. 35 at 9‒10 (setting forth qualified immunity standard); 13

28

(distinguishing between stating a cognizable constitutional claim in motion to dismiss context and
2

1

cle
early establis
shed law regarding First Amendment violations) 13‒14 (dis
nt
);
scussing whe
ether there is
s

2

cle
early establis
shed law requ
uiring prison officials to take affirm
n
o
mative steps t assist in m
to
meeting court
t

3

dea
adlines); and 21 (discuss
d
sing overruli of Parra and the C
ing
att),
Court will no repeat tha analysis
ot
at

4

her
re.

5
6

Plaintif has not sho that the Court comm
ff
own
mitted clear error. Acco
ordingly, the Court
DE
ENIES Plaint
tiff’s motion for reconsideration.
n

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

CONCLU
USION
For the foregoing re
easons, Plain
ntiff’s motio for recons
on
sideration is DENIED. D No. 37.
Dkt.
This case rema closed.
ains
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: Decem
mber 1, 2017
___
__________
___________
__________
________
HA
AYWOOD S GILLIAM JR.
S.
M,
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3