Kakowski v. SGT Gonzales
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion for reconsideration of its prior dismissal of an access-to-courts claim. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead the underlying failure-to-protect claim with sufficient specificity as required by Christopher v. Harbury.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration Denied“Reconsideration is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the pleading standards from Christopher v. Harbury, which requires an access-to-courts plaintiff to plead the underlying claim with the same specificity as if it were being independently pursued. The order notes that the plaintiff's new allegations regarding the settlement amount do not cure the deficiency of failing to describe the underlying failure-to-protect claim. The court also correctly notes the plaintiff's failure to state a proper basis for reconsideration (such as new evidence or clear error). |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the legal standard for access-to-courts claims. It correctly identifies that the plaintiff's attempt to add details about the settlement amount does not satisfy the requirement to plead the underlying constitutional violation (failure to protect) with specificity. The court also properly notes the procedural deficiency in the motion for reconsideration itself.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Brian KAKOWSKI, Case No.: 24-cv-1314-AGS-BLM CDCR #BF-3315, 4 ORDER DENYING Plaintiff, RECONSIDERATION MOTION 5 v. (ECF 16) 6 Correctional Sergeant GONZALES, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 In both his first and second amended complaints, plaintiff Brian Kakowski brought 10 an access-to-courts claim, claiming that defendants in this case interfered with a different, 11 ongoing lawsuit against prison personnel for failure to protect him from Hepatitis-C 12 exposure. (ECF 6-1, at 10–11; ECF 13, at 4.) Each time, this Court dismissed the 13 access-to-courts claim on screening, finding Kakowski’s deficient allegations left the Court 14 “to guess at the remedy being sought.” (ECF 12, at 8 (cleaned up); ECF 14, at 4 15 (cleaned up).) Now Kakowski seeks reconsideration, pointing out that in his second 16 amended complaint he added allegations that he settled his prior case “for 500 dollars” and 17 “would like to be compensated for” the 4,500-dollar difference between his expected and 18 actual settlement amount. (ECF 16, at 1.) Overlooking for the moment Kakowski’s fatal 19 failure to set forth an appropriate basis for reconsideration—such as “newly discovered 20 evidence,” “clear error,” or “an intervening change in controlling law”—Kakowski’s 21 access-to-courts claim falls short on the merits. See School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 22 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 23 “[T]he underlying cause of action” in an access-to-courts claim “is an element that 24 must be described in the complaint just as much as allegations must describe the official 25 acts frustrating the litigation.” Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (cleaned 26 up). Simply put, “the complaint should state the underlying claim” “just as if it were being 27 independently pursued.” Id. at 417. Because Kakowski’s second amended complaint 28 1 |}contains no additional facts regarding the underlying failure-to-protect claim, his 2 || access-to-courts claim fails. Reconsideration is DENIED. 3 || Dated: April 14, 2025 5 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28