Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00078-H-AJB

Document 26

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 On January 14, 2008, Jorge Guadarrama ("Plaintiff"), a state inmate currently
vs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JORGE GUADARRAMA, CDCR #P-54739, Plaintiff, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 25] Civil No. 08-0078 H (AJB)

20 incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison located in Calipatria, California and proceeding pro se, 21 filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion 22 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") which was granted on February 4, 2008. 23 Subsequently, on February 20, 2008, this Court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff's

24 Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 25 §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b). (See Feb. 20, 2008 Order at 6-7.) However, Plaintiff was 26 granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading 27 identified in the Court's Order. (Id.) On April 25, 2008, Plaintiff filed his First Amended 28 Complaint ("FAC").
-108cv0078

.

Case 3:08-cv-00078-H-AJB

Document 26

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 2 of 3

1

The Court, once again, conducted the required sua sponte screening of Plaintiff's FAC

2 and found that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 3 1915A(b) as to Defendants the State of California, James Tilton, L.E. Scribner, M. Levin, C. 4 Gray and M. Correa. (See July 8, 2008 Order at 3-4.) However, as to the remaining claims 5 against the remaining Defendants, the Court found that Plaintiff's FAC survived the sua sponte 6 screening and therefore, he was entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. (Id. at 4.) 7 Plaintiff has now filed a "Notice of Motion Objecting to this Court Order Dismissing

8 Defendants" [Doc. No. 25] which the Court liberally construes as a motion for reconsideration. 9 I. 10 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration A motion for reconsideration may be construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment

11 under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); 12 In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994). In Osterneck, 13 the Supreme Court stated that "a postjudgment motion will be considered a Rule 59(e) motion 14 where it involves `reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a decision on the merits.'" 15 Id. at 174 (quoting White v. New Hampshire Dep't of Employ't Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 451 (1982)). 16 Under Rule 59(e), "[r]econsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with 17 newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 18 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. There may also be other, 19 highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration." School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 20 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). 21 Plaintiff provides very little basis for his motion. In his declaration, he states that he was

22 only given "eight hours of access to the law library for the month of March." (See Pl.'s Mot. at 23 4.) During that time frame, Plaintiff never requested an extension of time from the Court to file 24 his FAC. However, even if Plaintiff had received an extension of time to file his FAC, it is 25 unlikely that the Court would have ruled any differently with respect to the dismissal of the 26 Defendants identified in the Court's Order. 27 Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has provided no newly discovered evidence, has failed

28 to show clear error or that the Court rendered a manifestly unjust decision, and has further failed
-208cv0078

.

Case 3:08-cv-00078-H-AJB

Document 26

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 3 of 3

1 to identify any intervening changes in controlling law that would demand reconsideration of the 2 Court's Order. School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. 3 II. 4 5 Conclusion and Order Accordingly, Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 25].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 DATED: August 11, 2008 7 8 9 All parties of record. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-308cv0078

COPIES TO:

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

.