Davis et al v. Abercrombie et al
Filing
321
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF RICHARD DAVIS'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST re: 293 , 286 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 6/ 6/2013. (afc)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, in his
)
official capacity as the
)
Governor of the State of
)
Hawaii; TED SAKAI, in his
)
official capacity as the
)
Director of the Hawaii
Department of Public Safety; )
)
CORRECTIONS CORPORATIONS OF
)
AMERICA,
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )
RICHARD KAPELA DAVIS, MICHAEL
HUGHES, DAMIEN KAAHU, ROBERT
A. HOLBRON, JAMES KANE, III,
ELLINGTON KEAWE, KALAI POAHA,
TYRONE KAWAELANILUA`OLE
NA`OKI GALDONES,
CIVIL NO. 11-00144 LEK-BMK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF RICHARD DAVIS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST
Before the Court is Plaintiff Richard Kapela Davis’s
(“Davis”) Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Order Granting in
Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss For
Failure to Exhaust, Entered April 11, 2013, filed April 25, 2013
(“Motion”).
[Dkt. no. 293.]
Defendants Neil Abercrombie, in his
official capacity as the Governor of the State of Hawai`i, Ted
Sakai, in his official capacity as Director of the Hawai`i
Department of Public Safety, and Corrections Corporation of
America (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a memorandum in
opposition to the Motion on May 13, 2013.
filed a reply on May 30, 2013.
[Dkt. no. 299.]
[Dkt. no. 308.]
Davis
The Court finds
this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant
to Rule LR7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United
States District Court for the District of Hawai`i (“Local
Rules”).
After careful consideration of the Motion, supporting
and opposing memoranda, and the relevant legal authority, Davis’s
Motion is HEREBY DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
BACKGROUND
The relevant factual and procedural background in this
case is set forth in this Court’s April 11, 2013 Order Granting
in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to Exhaust (“4/11/13 Order”).
Davis v. Abercrombie, Civ.
No. 11-00144 LEK-BMK, 2013 WL 1568425 (D. Hawai`i Apr. 11, 2013).
Davis seeks reconsideration of the 4/11/13 Order
insofar as the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to Exhaust as to Davis’s claim regarding his right to
meet regularly with a spiritual advisor.
In the 4/11/13 Order,
the Court found that Davis failed to exhaust his spiritual
advisor claim because he did not refile his August 2010 Informal
Resolution regarding that claim after he was informed on August
27, 2010 that the original Informal Resolution had been lost and
that he should re-file the document.
2
The Court further found
that he also failed to file a Formal Grievance or subsequent
Warden appeal as to the spiritual advisor claim.
In light of the
fact that Davis successfully exhausted other claims, the Court
was unpersuaded by Davis’s claim that he did not believe he was
required or permitted to exhaust his administrative remedies as
to the spiritual advisor claim, notwithstanding the fact that the
original Informal Resolution was lost.
As such, the Court
granted the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust as to
Davis’s spiritual advisor claim.
2013 WL 1568425, at *9.
In the instant Motion, Davis seeks reconsideration of
the 4/11/13 Order on the grounds that “the Court failed to
consider newly discovered evidence that the Defendants submitted
following the Court’s hearing on the [Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to Exhaust] but prior to the Court’s written order.”
[Mem. in Supp. of Motion at 1 (emphasis omitted).]
Specifically,
Davis states that the lost (and recently located) Informal
Resolution submitted to the Court by Defendants on April 2, 2013
constitutes newly discovered evidence that discredits Defendants’
legal theory for dismissal and necessitates a reconsideration of
the Court’s conclusion that Davis failed to exhaust his spiritual
advisor claim.
[Id. at 6-8.]
DISCUSSION
In order to obtain reconsideration of the 4/11/13
Order, Davis’s Motion “must accomplish two goals.
3
First, a
motion for reconsideration must demonstrate reasons why the court
should reconsider its prior decision.
Second, a motion for
reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior
decision.”
See Donaldson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 947 F. Supp.
429, 430 (D. Hawai`i 1996); accord Tom v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, CIV.
NO. 10–00653 SOM/BMK, 2011 WL 2712958, at *1 (D. Hawai`i July 12,
2011) (citations omitted).
This district court recognizes three
grounds for granting reconsideration of an order: “(1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of
new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.”
White v. Sabatino, 424 F. Supp. 2d 1271,
1274 (D. Hawai`i 2006) (citing Mustafa v. Clark County Sch.
Dist., 157 F.3d 1169, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 1998)).
The District of
Hawai`i has implemented these standards in Local Rule 60.1.1
“Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to the
sound discretion of the court.”
Navajo Nation v. Confederated
Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046
(9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop,
229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000)).
1
Local Rule 60.1 provides, in part, that: “[m]otions for
reconsideration of interlocutory orders may be brought only upon
the following grounds: (a) Discovery of new material facts not
previously available; (b) Intervening change in law; (c) Manifest
error of law or fact.”
4
Davis’s Motion seeks reconsideration on the ground that
the August 2011 Informal Resolution, which Defendants recently
found and subsequently disclosed to the Court on April 2, 2013,
[dkt. no. 276,] constituted newly discovered evidence, or, in the
alternative, in light of the Defendants’ subsequent submission of
the lost Informal Resolution, the Court committed a manifest
error of law and fact when it relied upon the testimony and
evidence submitted by Defendants’ witness Juan Valenzuela.
[Mem.
in Supp. of Motion at 10.]
As an initial matter, the Court notes that,
notwithstanding the fact that the actual Informal Resolution had
not yet been located at the time, Davis made similar arguments as
to exhaustion of his spiritual advisor claims in his opposition
to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust.
Specifically, Davis argued that prison officials had “improperly
screened” his grievances, rendering his administrative remedies
“effectively unavailable such that no further exhaustion is
required.”
[Mem. in Opp. to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
Exhaust at 21.]
Davis makes essentially the same argument in the
instant Motion: that Defendants’ failure to process Davis’s
Informal Grievance after they believed it to be lost constituted
“improper screening” and rendered Davis’s administrative remedies
“effectively unavailable” such that Davis was not required to
exhaust.
[Mem. in Supp. of Motion at 8-9.]
5
The Court rejected
this argument in the 4/11/13 Order.
Mere disagreement with the
Court’s analysis in the 4/11/13 Order is not a sufficient basis
for reconsideration.
See White v. Sabatino, 424 F. Supp. 2d
1271, 1274 (D. Hawai`i 2006) (citing Leong v. Hilton Hotels
Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572 (D. Hawai`i 1988)); Haw. Stevedores,
Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 (D. Hawai`i 2005).
Further, Defendants’ recent discovery of the previously
lost Informal Resolution cannot be said to be new, material
evidence, as it does not change the fact that Davis failed to
exhaust his spiritual advisor claim.
Shortly after Davis
submitted his Informal Resolution regarding his spiritual advisor
claim, he was notified by Grievance Coordinator Valenzuela that
the Informal Resolution had been lost, and that he would be
granted an extension of time during which he was urged to refile
his grievance so that it could be processed by Defendants.
failed to so refile.
2013 WL 1568425, at *9.
Davis
Davis does not
allege that Defendants actually knew where the Informal
Resolution was at any time before they submitted it to this Court
on April 2, 2013,2 nor has he alleged that he otherwise attempted
to exhaust his spiritual advisor claim.
2
It is therefore
In the instant Motion, Davis attempts to make much of the
distinction between the terms “lost” and “misplaced,” and argues
that Valenzuela’s testimony is unreliable and should not be
credited. He nevertheless does not assert that Defendants knew
where the Informal Resolution was at the time Valenzuela urged
Davis to refile.
6
irrelevant, for purposes of assessing Davis’s exhaustion of
administrative remedies at the time, that the Informal Resolution
was later discovered as having been misfiled.
The discovery of
the Informal Resolution simply cannot be said to constitute new
material evidence, nor does it demonstrate that the Court’s
4/11/13 Order contained a manifest error of law or fact.
The Court therefore FINDS that Davis has not presented
any ground warranting reconsideration of the 4/11/13 Order.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Davis’s Motion for
Partial Reconsideration of Order Granting in Part and Denying in
Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Exhaust,
Entered April 11, 2013, filed April 25, 2013, is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, June 6, 2013.
/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
RICHARD KAPELA DAVIS, ET AL. V. NEIL ABERCROMBIE, ETC., ET AL.;
CIVIL NO. 11-00144 LEK-BMK; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF RICHARD
DAVIS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
FAILURE TO EXHAUST
7
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?