Martin
Filing
176
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; ADDRESSING OTHER REQUESTS by Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Denying 175 Motion for Reconsideration re 175 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by George Martin, 173 Request filed by George Martin, [ 174] Request filed by George Martin. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
GEORGE MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
W. MUNIZ, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 17-01690 BLF (PR)
ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION;
ADDRESSING OTHER
REQUESTS
(Docket Nos. 173, 174, 175)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant pro se civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against prison
officials at the Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). The Court
granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
claim against them. Dkt. No. 169. Plaintiff has filed a motion
for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59
and 60(b)(1-6), Dkt. No. 175, along with exhibits in support, Dkt.
No. 175-1.
Where the court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or
27
order (e.g., after dismissal or summary judgment motion), a
motion for reconsideration may be based either on Rule 59(e)
(motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion for
relief from judgment) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See Am. Ironworks & Erectors v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d
892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). The denial of a motion for
reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is construed as a denial of relief
under Rule 60(b). Id. at 1255 n.3 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation
omitted) (en banc).
Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made
or freely granted; they are not a substitute for appeal or a means
of attacking some perceived error of the court. See Twentieth
Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th
Cir. 1981). “‘[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration
involve an intervening change of controlling law, the availability
of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.’” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v.
Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United
States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir.
1970)).
This action was based on Defendants’ treatment of
Plaintiff’s chronic pain related to certain longstanding injuries to
his neck and back, and the alleged failure to provide corrective
surgeries to address that pain. Dkt. No. 137 at 6. With regards to
this treatment, Plaintiff claimed the following; (1) in February
2007, he was given the wrong blood pressure medicine and that
another pain medication, tramadol, was improperly cancelled; (2)
28
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Defendant Tran was deliberately indifferent to him from 2007
through 2015, and that he has been falsely labeled as a “noncompliant” patient; (3) at some point in 2013, he was given
Tylenol with codeine but was later given a different drug which
tasted strange; (4) his extended release morphine was cancelled
in 2016 and replaced with “crush-float morphine” which is
inadequate; and (5) he was denied pain medication, a CAT scan,
and surgeries during 2016 and 2017. Dkt. No. 169 at 16. In
granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court
concluded that there was an absence of a genuine dispute of
material fact with respect to any of these Eighth Amendment
claims. Id. at 27.
The Court first considers Plaintiff’s motion for
reconisderation under Rule 59(e). A motion for reconsideration
under Rule 59(e) “‘should not be granted, absent highly unusual
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly
discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an
intervening change in the law.’” McDowell v. Calderon, 197
F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc).
Evidence is not newly discovered for purposes of a Rule 59(e)
motion if it was available prior to the district court's ruling. See
Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 998 (9th Cir. 2011)
(affirming district court’s denial of habeas petitioner's motion for
reconsideration where petitioner's evidence of exhaustion was not
“newly discovered” because petitioner was aware of such
evidence almost one year prior to the district court's denial of the
petition). A district court does not commit clear error warranting
28
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
reconsideration when the question before it is a debatable one.
See McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1256 (district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying reconsideration where question whether it
could enter protective order in habeas action limiting Attorney
General’s use of documents from trial counsel’s file was
debatable).
Plaintiff’s major arguments are that the Court has failed to
be impartial in its ruling and that Defendant Bright’s declaration
is “perjured testimony.” Dkt. No. 175 at 4, 5. Plaintiff repeats
his assertions from his prior briefs that his pain issues stem from
a “wrongful surgery” from 2006. Id. at 9-11. He also contends
that there is evidence of his inability to consume crush-float
medication. Id. at 15-16. However, none of these assertions or
evidence establish grounds for reconsideration under Rule 59(e).
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d at 369
n.5. First of all, Plaintiff does not allege any intervening change
of controlling law. Secondly, the documents Plaintiff submits in
support do not constitute “new evidence,” as they are largely
from his medical records which were available prior to the
district court's ruling, see Ybarra, 656 F.3d at 998, and any “new”
information he provides is not relevant to the issues that have
been resolved. Dkt. No. 175-1. For example, Plaintiff insists that
Defendants were aware of his need for surgery, and that a letter
in a “Plata Class action inquiry” shows that he would be “cleared
for surgery.” Dkt. No. 175 at 2; Dkt. No. 175-1 at 12. However,
this Plata letter is dated October 19, 2011, which is
approximately 5 years before the allegations in the instant action
28
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
that Defendants denied him surgery during 2016 and 2017. As
the Court found, the only mention of surgery was in the medical
records submitted by Plaintiff from January 2017, when Dr.
Ramberg concluded that surgery was not a viable option to
alleviate Plaintiff’s chronic pain. Dkt. No. 169 at 22-23.
Plaintiff asserts in his motion that the Court improperly relied on
Dr. Ramberg’s report and that two other doctors had different
opinions. Dkt. No. 175 at 27. However, Dr. Ramberg’s report
was submitted by Plaintiff in support of his opposition, and the
other doctors’ reports he provides now are from 2007 and 2008,
which is 9-10 years before Plaintiff was allegedly denied surgery
in 2016 and 2017. Dkt. No. 175-1 at 22-23, 26-27. Furthermore,
Plaintiff’s assertions that Dr. Bright’s declaration is “perjured
testimony” and that the Court has failed to be impartial are
simply conclusory and is not supported by any evidence. A
review of Dr. Bright’s declaration shows that he simply
summarized the underlying medical records of Plaintiff, which
were attached to the declaration. Dkt. No. 167-1. Plaintiff does
not claim that Dr. Bright mischaracterized any of the records, but
rather he disagrees with the observations contained in the chart
notes.1 Plaintiff further offers only references to other chart notes
regarding recommendations for treatment that predate Dr.
Bright’s review by five to ten years. Lastly, Plaintiff’s lay
opinions that he should be provided with other pain medications
25
26
27
28
The Court will address Plaintiff’s specific objections in the
following discussion under Rule 60(b). See infra at 7-8.
1
5
27
or surgery are not sufficient to attack the credibility of Dr.
Bright’s testimony or to create a triable issue of material fact.
Absent highly unusual circumstances, and Plaintiff pleads none,
the Court finds no other basis for granting the motion for
reconsideration where the Court’s decision was correct. See
McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255. Accordingly, the amended motion
for reconsideration based on Rule 59(e) is DENIED.
The Court next considers the motion under Rule 60(b). Rule
60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the
following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due
diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason
justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS
Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). Rule 60(b)(6) is a
“catchall provision” that applies only when the reason for
granting relief is not covered by any of the other reasons set forth
in Rule 60. United States v. Washington, 394 F.3d 1152, 1157
(9th Cir. 2005). “It has been used sparingly as an equitable
remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only
where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking
timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Id.
(internal quotations omitted).
Plaintiff has failed to establish any basis for reconsideration
under Rule 60(b). At most, his argument that Dr. Bright offered
“perjured testimony” may be construed as an assertion of “fraud
28
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
by the adverse party.” The relevant inquiry is not whether
fraudulent conduct prejudiced the opposing party, but whether it
harmed the integrity of the judicial process. See United States v.
Sierra Pacific Indus., 862 F.3d 1157, 1168 (9th Cir. 2017).
There must be an intentional, material misrepresentation that
goes to the central issue in the case and that affects the outcome
of the case. Id. Relief is available only where the fraud was not
known at the time of settlement or entry of judgment. Id. A
“mere discovery violation or non-disclosure does not rise to the
level of fraud on the court.” Id. at 1171. “[A] long trail of small
misrepresentations--none of which constitutes fraud on the court
in isolation--could theoretically paint a picture of intentional,
material deception when viewed together” even if each individual
misrepresentations did not rise to the level of fraud on the court.
Id. at 1173.
Here, Plaintiff points to parts of Dr. Bright’s declaration
which he asserts includes “perjured” statements. First, Plaintiff
asserts that Dr. Bright’s account of an incident where Plaintiff
was alleged to have run 10 feet is incorrect. Dkt. No. 175 at 12.
However, the Court did not merely rely on Dr. Bright’s
declaration but reviewed the supporting documentation by
medical staff reporting on the incident. Dkt. No. 169 at 5-6.
Accordingly, any alleged inconsistency by Dr. Bright in this
regard did not affect the outcome of the case. Plaintiff also
points to Dr. Bright’s statement that Plaintiff was belligerent
toward staff without identifying the specific staff member. Dkt.
No. 175 at 17. This lack of information does not impact the
28
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
outcome of the case because there was other evidence of
Plaintiff’s belligerence: Defendant Birdsong reported Plaintiff
was belligerent in March 2015, Dkt. No. 169 at 8; and Plaintiff
was belligerent while interacting with Dr. Carl Bourne, a
nonparty, whom Plaintiff called a “liar,” id. at 9. Plaintiff also
asserts that Dr. Bright offered “perjured testimony” when he
stated that there were no physical findings in Plaintiff’s medical
exams or imaging to support Plaintiff’s request for surgery. Dkt.
No. 175 at 18-19. Plaintiff asserts that the consultation notes
from Dr. Rahimifar from 2006 states otherwise. Id. at 19.
However, Plaintiff’s claim in this instant action was that
Defendants wrongly denied him surgery in 2016 and 2017: the
fact that Plaintiff needed surgery in 2006, which he did in fact
receive, does not establish that Dr. Bright’s statement over a
decade later was false. Based on the foregoing, the Court is not
persuaded that Dr. Bright’s declaration constates “fraud” such
that it harmed the integrity of the judicial process. See Sierra
Pacific Indus., 862 F.3d at 1168. Accordingly, Plaintiff has
failed to establish that he is entitled to this equitable remedy
under Rule 60(b) to prevent manifest injustice. See Washington,
394 F.3d at 1157.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) is DENIED.
Dkt. No. 175.
Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to respond to the
court’s order is DENIED as moot. Dkt. No. 173. He also
requests a court order granting him law library access. Id. That
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
motion is DENIED to filing it in the Ninth Circuit, if he chooses
to appeal this matter.
Plaintiff’s request that his motion for reconsideration be
served on Defendants’ counsel is also DENIED as moot. Dkt.
No. 174.
This order terminates Docket Nos. 173, 174, and 175.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: __May 25, 2021__
________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Order Denying Motion for Recon.; Other Motions
PRO-SE\BLF\CR.17\01690Martin_deny.recon
26
27
28
9
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?