Farnsworth v. Sinclair et al
Filing
22
ORDER denying 20 21 Motions for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (BF, Paralegal)**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Charles Farnsworth, Prisoner ID: 875475)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
6
7
CHARLES V. FARNSWORTH,
NO: 4:16-CV-5104-TOR
8
9
10
11
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION
v.
(2) UNKNOWN DOC STAFF,
DONALD HOLBROOK, JONI
AIYEKU, STEVE BARKER and ROB
JACKSON,
12
Defendants.
13
14
BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s pro se Motion for Reconsideration, ECF
15
No. 20, as well as a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 21.
16
Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Washington State Penitentiary was proceeding in forma
17
pauperis; Defendants were not served. Plaintiff is challenging the Order dismissing
18
his Second Amended Complaint and denying his motion to compel the U.S.
19
Marshal’s Office to serve his Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. Judgment
20
was entered on December 19, 2016, ECF No. 19. The motions were noted for
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 1
1
hearing on February 6, and February 22, 2016, respectively, and were considered
2
without oral argument on the date signed below.
3
RECONSIDERATION
4
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) offers “an extraordinary remedy, to be
5
used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”
6
Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). A motion
7
to reconsider under Rule 59(e) may be granted when: (1) there is an intervening
8
change in controlling law; (2) the moving party presents newly discovered or
9
previously unavailability evidence; and (3) the motion is necessary to correct
10
manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based. See Turner v.
11
Burlington N. Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003).
12
There has been no intervening change in the controlling law. Plaintiff has not
13
offered newly discovered evidence that would justify this Court re-examining his
14
failure to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Finally, there is no clear
15
error or manifest injustice for which the Court should alter its prior ruling.
16
Prison officials cannot prevent inclement weather, and the failure to
17
immediately ameliorate its effects does not equate to deliberate indifference.
18
Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, a temporary exposure to snow and ice, without
19
more, does not pose an unsafe condition for which prison officials are liable. The
20
Eighth Amendment does not outlaw cruel and unusual “conditions”; it outlaws cruel
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 2
1
and unusual “punishments.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837-38 (1994)
2
(failure to alleviate a significant risk that should have been perceived but was not,
3
does not satisfy the “subjective” state of mind necessary for liability).
4
Within its discretion, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any
5
perceived state law claims. Moreover, in cases where “there is no independent basis
6
for federal jurisdiction,” that is, where the federal claims are “absolutely devoid of
7
merit or obviously frivolous,” supplemental jurisdiction does not attach. Brady v.
8
Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Dismissal of any
9
perceived state law claims is without prejudice to their pursuit in state court.
10
11
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motions, ECF Nos. 20 and 21 are
DENIED.
12
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order and furnish a copy to
13
Plaintiff. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of
14
this Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any arguable basis in law
15
or fact. The file remains CLOSED.
16
DATED February 13, 2017.
17
18
THOMAS O. RICE
Chief United States District Judge
19
20
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 3
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?