Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Butler v. Onyejie

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 31, 2014

PERRY C. BUTLER, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. O. ONYEJIE, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 80)

MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Perry C. Butler, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 on April 5, 2011. (ECF No. 3.) The action proceeds on Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint against Defendant Onyejie for deliberate indifference to serious medical need in violation of the Eighth amendment. (ECF No. 16.)

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and various supporting documents and motions. (ECF Nos. 37-9, 43, 47-51, 54-60, 62-3, 69-72, and 76.) The Court denied the summary judgment motions, resolved ancillary filings, and set this matter for jury trial. (ECF No. 77.) On February 19, 2014, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the Courts order denying summary judgment. (ECF No. 80.) Plaintiff did not file a response. The motion is deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) "is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances..." exist. Harvest v. Castro , 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted).

"A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the... court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law, " Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co. , 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009), and "[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the [c]ourt's decision, and recapitulation..." of that which was already considered by the court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist. , 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show the "new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion...."

III. DISCUSSION

In his motion for reconsideration, Defendant contends that the Court made several manifest errors of law or fact that warrant reconsideration of its decision to deny summary judgment. Defendant argues that the Court erroneously based its decision, in part, on factual disputes not raised by the parties, Plaintiffs self-serving and uncorroborated declaration attributing improper motives to Defendant, and materials outside the record. The motion also contends that the Court failed to properly analyze Defendants qualified immunity defense.

A. Disputed Issue of Fact Created by the Court

This case raises issues regarding the nature of medical care provided by Defendant to Plaintiff in May 2010 and thereafter. However, documents in Plaintiffs records show that Plaintiff had first submitted a request for medical care for ear symptoms approximately eight months before being treated by Defendant in May 2010. In denying summary judgment, the Court observed that the parties did not dispute that Plaintiff had sought medical treatment for his ear symptoms in September of 2009. The Court also determined that summary judgment was inappropriate in part because there was an issue as to whether Defendant took Plaintiffs medical history into account in treating Plaintiff in and after May 2010 and whether a failure to do so reflected deliberate indifference.

Defendant argues that the issue of his alleged failure to review Plaintiffs medical records was not raised by Plaintiff. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff alleged that he submitted a health care service request in September 2009 complaining of pain in his throat and ears. (ECF No. 37 at 12.) That health care service request was attached as an exhibit to Plaintiffs summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 39 at 12.) Part of Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim is that Defendant delayed a referral to an Ear, Nose, and Throat (ENT) specialist and thereby was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. (ECF No. 37 at 13.) Plaintiff repeatedly refers to the September 2009 request for care to demonstrate the severity of his medical need and to show that Defendant acted knowingly because that request was a part of Plaintiffs records. How Defendant chose to treat Plaintiff in light of his medical record was raised by Plaintiff and is a material dispute unresolved by the parties' motions.

B. Defendant's Motive

The Court also found a genuine issue of material fact regarding Defendants motive in denying Plaintiffs request for referral to an ENT specialist. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant said "it did not make any sense to waste the state[]s money sending Plaintiff to an ENT because he could treat Plaintiff for the infection himself." (ECF No. 37 at 12.) Defendant denied the statement. The Court believes that if such a statement were made it could be interpreted by the finder of fact to suggest an improper ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.