United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
GONZALEZ ROGERS United States District Judge.
a state prisoner, filed this pro se action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 stemming from alleged constitutional
violations in connection with a cell fight that occurred at
Order dated October 28, 2014, this Court screened the
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that
Plaintiff had stated multiple cognizable claims, including
Eighth Amendment claims resulting from the January 18, 2013
incident in which he was attacked by his cellmate, inmate
Lozano. Dkt. 15 at 2. The Court specifically found two
section 1983 claims: (1) the alleged mishandling of
Plaintiff's inmate appeals constituted deliberate
indifference to his safety; and (2) the denial of access to
the courts. Id. The Court served the following
Defendants: (1) California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Secretary J. Beard; and
(2) the following persons at SVSP: Correctional Officers T.
Johnson and D. Moon; Sergeants E. Howard and Warren;
Lieutenants R. A. Kessler and E. Medina; Captains V. Solis
and R. Mojica; Clinical Psychologist C. Sanders; Appeals
Coordinator Mejia; and Warden Randy Grounds. Id. at
February 27, 2015, all of the aforementioned Defendants
except for Defendant Mejia (hereinafter
“Defendants”), filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. Dkt. 34. They argued that (1) the undisputed facts
established that none of the named Defendants were
constitutionally liable for the injuries that Plaintiff
sustained from the January 18, 2013 incident; (2) Plaintiff
failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a), as to his claims against Defendants Grounds
and Warren; (3) there were no triable disputes regarding
Defendants' subjective intent or participation in any
alleged constitutional deprivations; and (4) even if
constitutional violations had occurred, Defendants were
entitled to qualified immunity because they acted reasonably
under the circumstances. Id. at 1-2.
September 23, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion
for summary judgment based on Plaintiff's failure to
exhaust administrative remedies as to his claims against
Defendants Grounds and Warren, and granted the motion for
summary judgment on the merits as to his remaining claims.
the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Dkt.
100. Specifically, Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the
Court's September 23, 2015 Order pursuant to Rule
60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Id. at 1-3. Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in
granting summary judgment in Defendants'
favor. Dkt. 100 at 3. He also alleges that over
the past several months he has been taking
“psych[iatric] medication” for his “severe
ongoing mental health illness[es] and mental disorders,
” which prevented him from seeking reconsideration
earlier. Id. at 14. In support of his motion,
Plaintiff has submitted copies of two declarations and a
separate statement of undisputed facts, which were previously
filed along with his opposition to Defendants' February
27, 2015 motion for summary judgment. Dkts. 101-102.
Plaintiff has also submitted various exhibits, including the
transcript of his deposition taken on January 21, 2015.
read and considered the papers filed in connection with this
matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby DENIES
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration for the reasons
set forth below.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a party may seek
relief from a judgment and to re-open his case in limited
circumstances. The Rule provides:
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or
Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a
party or its legal representative from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct ...