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)
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?