Hunt v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying 64 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (SK, Case Administrator)**6 PAGES, PRINT ALL**(Donald Hunt, Prisoner ID: 786516)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 DONALD R. HUNT, No. 4:16-CV-5125-EFS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 9 v. 10 11 12 13 ISRAEL R. GONZALEZ; JEFFERY UTTECHT; DAVID BAILEY; LAURA SHERBO; JACQUELINE L. FLUAITT; LORI WONDERS; CHE; MICHAEL ZWICKY; AND 1 TO 20 UNKNOWN JOHN OR JANE DOES, 14 Defendants. 15 16 Before the Court, without oral argument, is Donald R. Hunt’s 17 Objection and Motion to Court for Reconsideration, ECF No. 64. Mr. 18 Hunt moves the Court to reconsider its July 20, 2017 Order Granting 19 Defendants’ Motion 20 subsequent Judgement 21 Defendants have filed a response to the Motion to Reconsider. ECF No. 22 65. Having reviewed the pleadings and the file in this matter, the 23 Court is fully informed and denies the Motion. for Summary entered in Judgment, favor of ECF No. Defendants, 60, and the ECF No. 61. 24 A motion for reconsideration is “appropriate if the district 25 court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed 26 clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if ORDER - 1 1 there is an intervening change in controlling law.” 2 v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “[A] motion for 3 reconsideration highly 4 circumstances,” and may not be used to raise arguments or present 5 evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 6 raised earlier in the litigation. 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 7 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999); Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 8 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). should not be granted, Sch. Dist. No. 1J absent unusual 9 Here, Plaintiff indicates that he is moving for reconsideration 10 in order to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. ECF 11 No. 64 at 2. 12 13 First, Plaintiff argues that the Court disregarded facts and evidence in order to find in favor of Defendants. ECF No. 64 at 3. 14 Second, Plaintiff argues that the Court inappropriately relied 15 on Defendants’ attestations to find that the restrictions on carbon 16 paper, compact discs, and calendars satisfied the standard set out in 17 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). ECF No. 64 at 3. Plaintiff 18 argues that Defendants’ statements regarding penological objectives 19 “do not provide factual evidence.” ECF No. 64 at 3. Plaintiff then 20 repeats 21 restrictions. ECF No. 64 at 3–11. 22 arguments Third, that Plaintiff he argues has previously that the made Court related committed to the error by related to 23 finding 24 grievances because prison grievance practices “chill Plaintiff’s First 25 Amendment rights which denies meaningful access to the courts.” ECF in 26 ORDER - 2 favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s claims 1 No. 64 at 11–13. Plaintiff also argues that the Court mischaracterized 2 the alleged retaliation by Defendant Fluaitt. ECF No. 64 at 13–14. 3 Fourth, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in finding that 4 Plaintiff suffered no actual injury due to claimed restrictions on his 5 access to the courts based on alleged deficiencies of the prison law 6 library. ECF No. 64 at 14–16. Plaintiff argues that he suffered an 7 actual injury in that his child support case was dismissed when he was 8 denied priority access to the law library. ECF No. 64 at 17–20. 9 Plaintiff also argues that the Court incorrectly concluded that 10 Defendant Sherbo did not have a duty to Plaintiff. ECF No. 64 at 16– 11 17. In addition, Plaintiff asserts that the Court erred in finding 12 that 13 Washington resource list and the alleged inadequacy of the Lexis legal 14 database did not result in a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional 15 rights. ECF No. 64 at 20–22, 24. Finally, Plaintiff argues that the 16 Court 17 deliberately indifferent in their behavior related to the law library. 18 ECF No. 64 at 22–24. 19 the law erred library’s failure regarding to Plaintiff’s include claim all resources that on Defendants the were After reviewing the pleadings, the record in this matter, and 20 applicable 21 Plaintiff has not met the standard for reconsideration. The Court 22 continues to find that Plaintiff did not suffer a deprivation of 23 rights warranting relief. 24 25 authority, the Court is fully informed and finds that Regarding Plaintiff’s first argument, the Court fully considered all facts and evidence in the record. 26 ORDER - 3 1 As to Plaintiff’s second argument, the Court continues to find 2 that the restrictions on carbon paper and compact discs do not result 3 in a violation of Plaintiff’s rights. In addition, the restrictions on 4 carbon paper, compact discs, and calendars are permissible under the 5 Turner v. Safley test. Whether this test is satisfied is a question of 6 law, and the Court finds, as reflected in its prior order, that 7 Defendants produced sufficient evidence to support the regulations 8 under the Turner test. 9 Third, the Court continues to find that Plaintiff’s rights were 10 not violated by practices related to the grievance system. Plaintiff’s 11 claims generally relate to grievance processes that he dislikes or 12 disagrees with, and, as the Court found in its prior order, these 13 claims are barred by the fact that prisoners do not have a right to a 14 specific grievance procedure. Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 15 Cir. 1988); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 16 2003). 17 Plaintiff argues that prison officials have not filed complaints or 18 lost complaints, the Court continues to find that Plaintiff did not 19 produce evidence of those practices or otherwise plead those claims 20 with sufficient specificity to establish a genuine dispute of material 21 fact. The Court also continues to find that Defendant Fluaitt’s letter 22 to Plaintiff threatening infraction if Plaintiff continued to file 23 multiple grievances on the same topic was appropriate under prison 24 grievance guidelines and did not constitute retaliation. 25 26 As reflected Finally, in regarding the Court’s Plaintiff’s prior fourth order, to argument, the the extent Court continues to find that Plaintiff failed to establish a cognizable ORDER - 4 1 injury to his right of access to the courts. While Plaintiff’s child 2 support case was dismissed, Plaintiff did not provide any evidence of 3 how he would have avoided dismissal had he been permitted access to 4 the law library. More importantly, Plaintiff’s child support case is 5 not the type of case for which prisoners are guaranteed a right of 6 access to the courts. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342–43 (9th 7 Cir. 2010) (explaining law library access is only constitutionally 8 required in direct appeals from incarcerating convictions or actions 9 vindicating “basic constitutional rights.” (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 10 518 U.S. 343, 354, (1996))). 11 In addition, the Court continues to find that the prison law 12 library’s failure to provide all resources included on the Washington 13 resource list did not violate Plaintiff’s right of access to the 14 courts or Plaintiff’s due process rights. The Court also continues to 15 find that Plaintiff failed to establish an Eighth Amendment claim 16 because, even if Defendants had been deliberately indifferent — and 17 the Court continues to find that Defendants were not indifferent — 18 Plaintiff was not deprived of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s 19 necessities” as required to prove an Eighth Amendment violation. See 20 Farmer 21 continues 22 Plaintiff to provide him with access to the courts because that duty 23 is 24 Sherbo did owe a duty to Plaintiff, the Court continues to find that 25 such a duty was not violated. 26 / v. owed ORDER - 5 Brennan, to by find prison 511 that U.S. 825, Defendant officials 834 (1994). Sherbo alone. did Finally, not Regardless, owe even the a if Court duty to Defendant 1 As such, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the 2 Court committed clear error by granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary 3 Judgment or that doing so was manifestly unjust. See Sch. Dist. No. 4 1J, 5 F.3d at 1255. Nor are Plaintiff’s circumstances highly unusual. 5 See 389 Orange St. Partners, 179 F.3d at 665. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 7 1. for Reconsideration, ECF No. 64, is DENIED. 8 9 Plaintiff Donald R. Hunt’s Objection and Motion to Court 2. The Court’s prior Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 60, REMAINS in effect. 10 11 3. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 This case shall remain CLOSED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to Plaintiff and all counsel. DATED this 19thday of September 2017. o September 2017. S e r 2017 1 15 EDWARD EDWARD F. SHEA AR SHEA HEA Senior United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Q:\EFS\Civil\2016\16-CV-5125.Hunt.ord.deny.recon.lc02.docx ORDER - 6

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?