August 5, 2013
RANDELL HOPKINS, CDCR #V-97737, Plaintiff,
DANIEL PARAMO; K. SEIBEL; R. OLSON; J. RAMIRES; Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 4)
GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff, Randell Hopkins, a state prisoner, and proceeding in pro se, initially filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 14, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) In addition, Plaintiff filed a certified copy of his prisoner trust fund account statement which the Court construed to be a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (ECF No. 2.) On June 27, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP and sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b). (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court but instead, Plaintiff has filed a "Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 4.)
II. PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS
A. Motion for Reconsideration
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for reconsideration. However, a motion for reconsideration may be construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994). Reconsideration under Rule 60 may be granted in the case of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) fraud; or if (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) for any other reason justifying relief. FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b).
In his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff begins by informing the Court that he intends to add three additional Defendants to this action. (ECF No. 4 at 1.) Because these proposed Defendants and the additional factual allegations Plaintiff sets forth in his Motion were not contained in the original Complaint, there is no portion of the Court's June 27, 2013 Order that warrants reconsideration. If Plaintiff wishes to add new Defendants and new claims, he must follow the Court's instructions permitting him leave to file an Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff does argue that the Court erred in dismissing the claims against Warden Paramo based on respondeat superior grounds. (ECF No. 4 at 1-2.) Plaintiff argues that as the Warden, Defendant Paramo "knows everything about our behavioral reinforcement and punishment with our discipline." ( Id. at 1.) As the Court stated in the June 27, 2013 Order, supervisory prison officials may only be held liable for the allegedly unconstitutional violations of a subordinate if Plaintiff sets forth allegations which show: (1) how or to what extent they personally participated in or directed a subordinate's actions, and (2) in either acting or failing to act, they were an actual and proximate cause of the deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. (ECF No. 3 at 7 citing Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). In Plaintiff's Motion and his original Complaint, Plaintiff refers to Defendant Paramo's involvement in general terms based on his supervisory capacity for which he cannot be held liable unless Plaintiff sets forth specific factual allegations as required by Johnson.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff's request for reconsideration provides the Court with no newly discovered evidence, fails to show clear error, or that the Court rendered a manifestly unjust decision. Plaintiff further fails to identify any intervening changes in controlling law that would demand reconsideration of the Court's June 27, 2013 Order.
Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 4.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.