Cleon Neal Jones v. Dr Ajmel Sangha MD et al
Filing
11
ORDER Denying 10 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 5/4/15. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
CLEON NEAL JONES,
CDCR #H-84601,
Civil
14cv2828 GPC (PCL)
No.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. AJMEL SANGHA, et al.,
Defendants.
(ECF No. 10)
16
17
18
I.
Procedural History
19
Plaintiff, an inmate currently housed at Centinela State Prison, is proceeding pro
20
se in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 17, 2015, the Court
21
dismissed Defendant Wyatt from the action and directed the United States Marshal’s
22
Service to effect service of the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) upon the remaining
23
Defendants. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff has filed a “Reconsideration of Order of Dismissal
24
of Defendant K. Wyatt.” (ECF No. 10.)
25
II.
Plaintiff’s Motion
26
A.
Standard of Review
27
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for
28
reconsideration. However, a motion requesting reconsideration of a matter previously
1
14cv2828 GPC (PCL)
1
decided may be construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) or
2
Rule 60(b). See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re
3
Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994). Under Rule
4
60, a motion for “relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding” may be filed within
5
a “reasonable time,” but usually must be filed “no more than a year after the entry of the
6
judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.”
7
Reconsideration under Rule 60 may be granted in the case of: (1) mistake, inadvertence,
8
surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) fraud; or if (4) the
9
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) other reason that justifies
10
FED.R.CIV.P. 60(c)(1).
relief. FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b).
11
B.
Plaintiff’s claims
12
In Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, he alleges that he was examined by
13
Defendant K. Wyatt on September 2, 2013. (FAC at 3.) Plaintiff claims he told
14
Defendant Wyatt that he had “suddenly lost vision in my right eye.” (Id.) Plaintiff
15
alleged that Defendant Wyatt should have treated his “injury as an emergency that day”
16
but instead she “chose to wait until the next day” to inform the prison’s chief medical
17
officer of Plaintiff’s injury. (Id.)
18
The Court found in the March 23, 2015 Order that these claims did not rise to the
19
level of “deliberate indifference” required to state an Eighth Amendment medical care
20
claim. (ECF No. 7 at 5; citing Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012)
21
(holding that a “difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner - or between
22
medical professionals - concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to
23
deliberate indifference.” )
24
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff again argues that Defendant Wyatt did
25
not “act in accordance with the rules” which he cites as the California Code of
26
Regulations definition of a “medical emergency.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 1-2.) He further claims
27
that “Defendant should have known that a sudden loss of vision if left untreated could
28
result in serious harm to Plaintiff’s vision. “ (Id. at 2.) “In order to show deliberate
2
14cv2828 GPC (PCL)
1
indifference, an inmate must allege sufficient facts to indicate that prison officials acted
2
with a culpable state of mind.” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302 (1991). The
3
indifference to medical needs also must be substantial; inadequate treatment due to
4
malpractice, or even gross negligence, does not amount to a constitutional violation.
5
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th
6
Cir. 2004) (“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.”) (citing Hallett v. Morgan,
7
296 F.3d 732, 1204 (9th Cir. 2002); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir.
8
1990)). Here, Plaintiff’s claims sound in negligence, as well as a difference of opinion,
9
rather than deliberate indifference.
10
A motion for reconsideration cannot be granted merely because Plaintiff is
11
unhappy with the judgment, frustrated by the Court’s application of the facts to binding
12
precedent or because he disagrees with the ultimate decision. See 11 Charles Alan
13
Wright & Arthur R. Miller Federal Practice & Procedure 2d § 2858 (Supp. 2013) (citing
14
Edwards v. Velvac, Inc., 19 F.R.D. 504, 507 (D. Wis. 1956)).
15
III.
16
17
18
Conclusion and Order
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration brought pursuant to
FED.R.CIV.P. 60 (ECF No. 10) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
DATED: May 4, 2015
21
22
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
14cv2828 GPC (PCL)
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?