Reed v. Paramo

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MYCHAL ANDRA REED, Case No.: 18-CV-361 JLS (LL)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS 13 vs. (1) FOR RECONSIDERATION, (2) TO COMPEL LEGAL 14 DANIEL PARAMO, et al., SUPPLIES, AND (3) TO REPLACE 15 Defendants. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 (ECF Nos. 200, 206, 208) 17 18 Presently before the Court are three filings from Plaintiff Mychal Andra Reed: 19 (1) Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendants’ Declarations of R. Blahnik and D. Nowroozian 20 (“Response”), supported by a Declaration from Plaintiff (“Decl.”) as well as Plaintiff’s 21 Request for Judge Sammartino to Order Defendants to Supply Him with Legal Supplies 22 (“Supplies Req.”) (ECF No. 200); (2) Plaintiff’s Change of Venue Request (“Venue Req.,” 23 ECF No. 206); and (3) Plaintiff’s Complaint of Prejudice by Magistrate in Denying his 24 Motion for Reconsideration (“Compl.,” ECF No. 208). The Court construes Plaintiff’s 25 filings as motions: (1) for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher’s Order 26 Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Law Library Access as Moot (ECF No. 185) and subsequent 27 order denying reconsideration of the same (ECF No. 195); (2) to compel Defendants to 28 provide him with legal supplies; and (3) to replace Magistrate Judge Butcher. Having 1 considered Plaintiff’s arguments, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions, for the reasons 2 provided below. 3 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to move a court to alter or 5 amend its judgment. In the Southern District of California, a party may apply for 6 reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or 7 other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part.” Civ. 8 L.R. 7.1(i)(1). The moving party must provide an affidavit setting forth, inter alia, “what 9 new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were 10 not shown, upon such prior application.” Id. 11 “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it ‘is presented with newly 12 discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the 13 controlling law.’” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation 14 marks omitted) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en 15 banc)) (emphasis in original). “Clear error or manifest injustice occurs when ‘the 16 reviewing court on the entire record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a 17 mistake has been committed.’” Young v. Wolfe, CV 07-03190 RSWL-AJWx, 2017 WL 18 2798497, at *5 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2017) (quoting Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 19 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013)). 20 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 21 finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 22 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for 23 reconsideration is in the “sound discretion” of the district court. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 24 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 883). A party may 25 not raise new arguments or present new evidence if it could have reasonably raised them 26 earlier. Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890 (citing 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 27 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). 28 / / / 1 Essentially, construing Plaintiff’s filings liberally, Plaintiff claims that the 2 Magistrate Judge clearly erred in accepting Defendants’ “false” statements concerning 3 Plaintiff’s access to the law library and the library services available to inmates, which 4 Plaintiff claims were supported by “no evidence.” ECF No. 200 at 10. In particular, 5 Plaintiff disputes the factual accuracy of Defendants’ statements concerning the number of 6 times he accessed the law library over a three-month period. See id. at 2. However, the 7 Court finds no clear error in the Magistrate Judge’s orders denying Plaintiff’s motions for 8 law library access. 9 Defendants submitted two declarations, one from R. Blahnik, a librarian in the law 10 library of the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJDCF”), where Plaintiff is 11 housed, see ECF No. 194 (“Blahnik Decl.”); and one from D. Nowroozian, a librarian in 12 RJDCF’s central library, see ECF No. 194-1 (“Nowroozian Decl.”). Both assert under 13 penalty of perjury that records show that Plaintiff visited the law library eight times, for 14 two hours each, from October 9 through November 19, 2020. See Blahnik Decl. ¶ 2; 15 Nowroozian Decl. ¶ 2. “Filing a declaration under penalty of perjury is a means of 16 providing evidence.” Lajevardi v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 17 SACV141249AGANX, 2015 WL 10990359, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2015). Accordingly, 18 the Magistrate Judge did not err in accepting as true and credible the sworn statements of 19 two librarians with personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s law library access and denying 20 Plaintiff’s request on that basis. 21 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of 22 Magistrate Judge Butcher’s orders concerning law library access. However, the Court will 23 repeat Magistrate Judge Butcher’s request “that Defendants provide Plaintiff with physical 24 law library access to the maximum extent that is permitted under RJDCF’s policies and 25 procedures and consistent with its administrative operations.” ECF No. 185 at 2. 26 MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE LEGAL SUPPLIES 27 Plaintiff also submits a request for this Court to order Defendants to supply him with 28 legal supplies. See Supplies Req. It is not entirely clear from Plaintiff’s filings what legal 1 supplies he seeks from Defendants; however, he mentions that they “refuse to supply him 2 with legal paper.” Supplies Req. at 5. 3 Yet, a review of the docket does not suggest Plaintiff is lacking in legal supplies. 4 Indeed, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on 5 November 23, 2020, see ECF No. 190; additional exhibits on January 4, 2021, see ECF 6 No. 202; an additional opposition on January 5, 2021, see ECF No. 204; a request for 7 adequate communication during the settlement conference, see ECF No. 214; and a request 8 to sanction Defendants, see ECF No. 218. It thus appears Plaintiff has had sufficient access 9 to legal paper and mailing services. 10 Further, the Court notes that R. Blahnik declares that the Facility A library annex, 11 which was only recently established, “is now [i.e., as of December 7, 2020] fully stocked 12 with supplies and resources,” Blahnik Decl. ¶ 4, and that the staff will provide inmates 13 “with paper and golf pencils upon request,” id. The annex also has computer terminals 14 with access to LexisNexis, legal forms, and other secondary sources, id., and inmates can 15 request copies of legal cases from the central library, id. R. Blahnik also declares that “[he] 16 ha[s] not denied inmate Reed any library access or materials that he is entitled too [sic], 17 and [he] ha[s] not seen any evidence that any other library staff member has done so.” Id. 18 ¶ 7. Nowroozian declares the same. See Nowroozian Decl. ¶ 7. It seems RJDCF is taking 19 reasonable measures, during these unprecedented times, to provide inmates with the legal 20 access and supplies they need. 21 Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s request that 22 the Court compel Defendants to provide him with legal supplies. However, the Court will 23 again request that Defendants provide Plaintiff with necessary legal supplies to the 24 maximum extent permitted under RJDCF’s policies and procedures and consistent with its 25 administrative operations. 26 MOTION TO REPLACE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 Finally, construing Plaintiff’s filings liberally, the Court construes Plaintiff’s Venue 28 Request and Complaint as a motion to have the magistrate judge assigned to his case 1 ||replaced. Although the Court is troubled that Plaintiff feels that Magistrate Judge Butcher 2 ||is prejudiced against him, the Court reminds Plaintiff that he raised similar claims when 3 || Magistrate Judge Lopez was assigned to his case. See ECF Nos. 106, 113. In denying 4 || Plaintiffs first motion seeking to have Magistrate Judge Lopez replaced, this Court noted 5 ||that Plaintiff “failed to present any ‘facts’ from which a ‘reasonable person’ could 6 || ‘conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’ and recusal is not 7 || warranted under either [28 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)] based on speculation.” 8 || ECF No. 107 at 1-2 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). The Court further explained 9 || that “‘[uJnfavorable rulings alone are legally insufficient to require recusal ... , even when 10 number of such unfavorable rulings is extraordinarily high on a statistical basis.’” Jd. 11 2 n.1 (citing Matter of Beverly Hills Bancorp, 752 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir. 1984)). 12 Thus, while Magistrate Judge Butcher decided Plaintiffs motion for law library 13 access, and the subsequent motion for reconsideration of the same, against Plaintiff, the 14 ||Court does not believe that such adverse rulings alone raise legitimate questions about 15 || Magistrate Judge Butcher’s impartiality, particularly given that the Court, for the reasons 16 |}explained supra, finds those rulings sound. Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT 17 || PREJUDICE Plaintiff's motion to replace Magistrate Judge Butcher. 18 CONCLUSION 19 For the reasons provided above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for 20 || reconsideration of his request for law library access, DENIES Plaintiff's motion to compel 21 || Defendants to provide legal supplies, and DENIES Plaintiff's request to replace Magistrate 22 || Judge Butcher (ECF Nos. 200, 206, 208). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ||Dated: March 8, 2021 . tt 25 jen Janis L. Sammartino % United States District Judge 27 28 5 ee