Samuels v. Lizarraga
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Mitchell D. Dembin (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, moved for reconsideration of a prior order denying his motion to compel the production of a list of his cellmates and their gang affiliations. The court denied the motion, finding that the requested information was irrelevant to the plaintiff's specific claim that the defendant falsely identified him as a Crip, leading to an assault.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration“Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for Rule 59(e) motions, requiring a showing of clear error, newly discovered evidence, or an intervening change in law. The court found that the plaintiff failed to show clear error because the relevance of the cellmates' gang affiliations did not align with the specific legal theory of the case (false identification leading to assault by Crips, rather than a claim about the composition of the cell). The reasoning is consistent with the record provided in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for a motion for reconsideration filed within 28 days (Rule 59(e)). It then applies the 'clear error' prong to the specific facts of the case, distinguishing between the plaintiff's argument (cellmates' affiliations prove pattern of dishonesty) and the actual claim (false identification as a Crip led to assault). The reasoning is logically sound and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ROBERT EARL SAMUELS, Case No.: 20cv1051-MDD-KSC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 M. LIZARRAGA, Defendant. 14 [ECF No. 22] 15 16 Robert Earl Samuels (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding in 17 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed a motion for 18 reconsideration of the Court’s January 25, 2021 Order denying Plaintiff’s 19 motion to compel M. Lizarraga (“Defendant”) to produce documents 20 responsive to his requests for production of documents, set one, numbers one 21 and two.1 (ECF No. 15). As it relates to the instant motion, the Court 22 declined to compel Defendant to produce a list of Plaintiff’s cellmates and 23 24 25 1 Plaintiff brought the motion as an objection to a Magistrate Judge’s Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF No. 22 at 1). However, Rule 72 does not apply to 26 a Magistrate Judge’s Order when the parties have consented to that Judge’s jurisdiction for purposes of trial and settlement. As such, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a 1 their gang affiliations because it is irrelevant. (ECF No. 22). For the reasons 2 set forth herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 3 I. LEGAL STANDARD 4 A motion for reconsideration may be brough under Federal Rule of Civil 5 Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). A motion is treated as a motion to alter or amend 6 judgment under Rule 59(e) if it is filed within twenty-eight days of entry of 7 judgment or the ruling; otherwise, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for 8 relief from a judgment or order. 9 , 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that a 10 motion for reconsideration is treated as a motion under Rule 59(e) if it is 11 timely filed under that rule and as a motion under Rule 60(b) otherwise). 12 Here, the Order referenced was filed on January 25, 2021 and the instant 13 motion was constructively filed on February 9, 2021. (ECF Nos. 15, 22). 14 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is properly brought under Rule 59(e). 15 , 248 F.3d at 898-99. 16 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), district courts have 17 the power to reconsider a previous ruling or entry of judgment. Under Rule 18 59(e), it is appropriate to alter or amend a previous ruling if “(1) the district 19 court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court 20 committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, 21 or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” 22 , 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation 23 omitted). 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 Plaintiff argues reconsideration is warranted because the Court’s 26 finding that Plaintiff’s cellmates’ gang affiliations is irrelevant is “clearly 1 ||that Defendant falsely asserted that Plaintiff was a Crip and only lived with 9 ||Crips. Ud. at 2). Plaintiff claims he is not a Crip and “has celled with people 3 any affiliation.” (/d. at 2-3). As a result, Plaintiff contends that 4 ||information regarding his cellmates’ gang affiliations is relevant to “proving 5 ||the Defendant’s pattern of dishonesty.” (/d.). 6 This case is not proceeding on claims that Plaintiff only celled with 7 ||inmates affiliated with particular gangs or that Plaintiff celled with inmates g || affiliated with several gangs. Rather, this case is proceeding on a claim that 9 || Defendant erroneously told other inmates that Plaintiff was a Crip, which led 10 multiple Crip members assaulting Plaintiff. (See ECF No. 1). The fact 11 ||that Plaintiff has celled with inmates affiliated with different gangs does not 12 ||relate to his claim that he was assaulted by Crip members because Defendant 13 ||falsely told inmates Plaintiff was claiming to be a Crip. Accordingly, the 14 || Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown the Court clearly erred or made a 15 decision that was manifestly unjust. 16 Ill. CONCLUSION 17 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for 18 reconsideration. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 19, 2021 Mitel bs. [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27