United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 73)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 5 & 8.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
On December 4, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment, deny Defendants' motion to strike, and deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 69.) The deadline for filing objections passed with none being filed. On December 29, 2014, the undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations in full. (ECF No.
Later on December 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendation that his motion for summary judgment be denied. (ECF No. 73.) The Court construes the objections as a motion for reconsideration.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
"A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district 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). "A motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised in earlier litigation." Id . Moreover, "recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden." U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834, 856-57 (D.N.J. 1992)). Similarly, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party seeking reconsideration show that "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...."
A. Plaintiff's Claims
The action proceeds against Defendants Benevidez, Gamboa, and Overley on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim. (ECF No. 9.) The allegations in Plaintiff's first amended complaint (ECF No. 8) may be summarized essentially as follows:
Plaintiff currently is incarcerated at California State Prison, Corcoran, where the events giving rise to his complaint occurred. On September 19, 2010, Plaintiff began a ninety-day punitive segregated confinement with Loss of Privileges ("LOP"). Plaintiff was not permitted to leave his cell for any reason until November 3, 2010. On the days Plaintiff was confined to his cell, he had no opportunity to exercise, shower, interact with others, breathe fresh air, or enjoy natural light.
Defendant Benavidez staffed the floor where Plaintiff was confined and knew of Plaintiff's circumstances. Plaintiff complained directly to Defendants Overley and Gamboa. ...