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)

Download PDF
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?