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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Shannon M ichael Clark, 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. 11 ValueOptions, et al., 12 Defendant. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 03-1344-PHX-EHC (HCE) ORDER IN THE UNITED S TATES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DIS TRICT OF ARIZONA

BL

Plaintiff is litigating a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Defendants ValueOptions, Karen M arshall, and Dr. Thomas Crumbley, alleging deliberate indifference to his mental health needs (Doc. #53). In particular, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were deliberat ely

indifferent to his medical needs when, based on an evaluation by Defendants Crumbley and M arshall, Plaintiff was denied imprisonment (Id.). mental health treatment after his release from

ValueOptions filed a M otion for Summary Judgment, which the Court The Court determined t hat any injury which resulted from As

granted (Docs. ##135, 257).

ValueOptions' actions arose after Plaintiff's release from incarceration (Doc. #257).

such, Plaint iff did not have a constitutional right not to be subjected to deliberate indifference to his medical needs (Id.). Notably, the order did not dispose of the claims

against Defendants M arshall and Crumbley (Id.). Plaintiff filed a timely M otion for Reconsideration (Doc. #263). Plaintiff t hen filed a M ot ion for Leave to Appeal (Doc. #273), a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. #274), and a motion for an order requiring the Arizona Department of Correct ions (ADOC) to

Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE

Document 281

Filed 10/25/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

provide him a certified inmate trust account so that he could seek in forma pauperis status on appeal (Doc. #275). I. Motion for Reconsideration Plaintiff filed a M otion for Reconsideration of this Court's order granting ValueOptions M otion for Summary Judgment (D oc. #263). Plaintiff argues that his

constitutional rights were violated because the denial of s ervices was based on an evaluation conducted while he was in prison (Id.). Plaintiff als o argues that the Court

incorrectly stated in its recitation of the facts that he has a drug offense and that an appointment was scheduled for him where he sought to refill his medication, while in fact the appointment was to as s is t him in filling out forms (Id.). The Court has jurisdiction over the M otion for Recons iderat ion as it was filed within 10 days from the date of the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(a)(a)(4)(B)(i). Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the Court "(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J, M ultnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff did not present newly discovered evidence, and there has been no change in controlling law. M oreover, t his Court did not clearly err in its initial decision because Plaintiff was not entitled under federal law to services upon his releas e, and any injuries as the result of him not qualifying for services w as not the result of deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Plaintiff's attempt to link his injuries t o the evaluation conducted while he was M oreover, the alleged factual inaccuracies were minor and det ermination. Accordingly, Plaintiff's M otion for

incarcerated are untenable. immaterial to the

Court 's

Reconsideration will be denied. II. Motion for Certification Plaintiff filed a "M otion for Permission to Appeal" the Court's order granting ValueOptions' M otion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 273). Plaintiff indicated that he was not sure if his issues were immediately appealable (Id.). -2Document 281 Filed 10/25/2006

Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

If the Court enters judgment as to a fewer than all claims or parties, the Court may certify the partial judgment as immediately appealable. 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). However, because the Order granting ValueOptions summary judgment did not " involve[] a controlling question of law as to which there [was] substantial ground for difference of opinion," P laint iff's request will be denied. M oreover, Plaintiff's notice of appeal is from a nonappealable order, and thus is a nullity and the Court maintains jurisdiction over Plaintiff's action and the pending motions. See Estat e of Conners, 6 F.3d 656, 659 (9th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1292. III. Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis Plaintiff also filed a motion requesting the Court issue an order requiring the ADOC to provide the Court with a certified inmate trust account statement so that he may seek to appeal w it hout p rep ayment of the filing fees (Doc. #275). "An appeal may not be taken in forma p aup eris if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Because Plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith, he is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. T hus , his motion for an order requiring the ADOC to

provide the Court with a certified inmate trust account statement will be denied. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's M otion for Reconsideration (Doc. #263), M otion for Leave to Appeal (Doc. #273), and M otion for Order requiring the ADOC t o p rovide the Court with a certified inmate trust statement (Doc. #275) are denied. DATED this 24th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE

-3Document 281 Filed 10/25/2006

Page 3 of 3