Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00750/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00750-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY G. BRIONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. HAND, et al.,

Defendants.

1:14-cv-00750-LJO-EPG (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE 

REGARDING HIS MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(ECF NO. 52)

Johnny G. Briones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on May 19, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) On August 19, 2016, defendants Cole, 

Hendricks, and Hand filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. (ECF No. 45.) On 

September 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed non-opposition to the motion, stating that he would not be able 

to oppose the motion to dismiss in a timely manner. (ECF No. 48.) Therefore, on September 12, 

2016, the Court dismissed the case, without prejudice. (ECF No. 49.) On December 14, 2016, 

Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Examine Administrative Exhaustion in Connection with Plaintiff’s 

Current Complaint.” (ECF No. 52.) The Court construes this as a motion to reconsider its order 

Case 1:14-cv-00750-LJO-EPG Document 53 Filed 12/22/16 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

dismissing the case. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs grounds for relief from an order:

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 by an 

opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment 

that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no 

longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Thus far, Plaintiff has failed to show that he meets any of the above-mentioned reasons for 

granting relief from the order dismissing the case. Plaintiff states that he has had extreme health 

problems, which is why he was unable to oppose the motion to dismiss. Additionally, Plaintiff 

states that he was not able to appeal his grievance to the third level because he has serious health 

problems, and because he was in the hospital without his legal property during the time period he 

had to appeal to the third level. Plaintiff asks the Court to order prison officials to address the 

merits of his prison grievance, even though it is untimely.

On the present record, there appears to be no reason why Plaintiff could not have brought 

these alleged facts to the Court’s attention in response to the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff was able 

to file a non-opposition, and nothing in the non-opposition suggested that Plaintiff had health 

problems or that he was in the hospital and did not have access to the legal paperwork at the time

he was required to exhaust his administrative remedies. Instead, he simply stated “Plaintiff will 

not be able to gather any and all documents possible in time before filing opposition pleading is 

due.” (ECF No. 48.) In other words, at the time of filing his non-opposition, Plaintiff knew (or 

should have known) about all of the issues he is now raising. Plaintiff does not explain why he 

did not raise his medical situation at that time. The only truly “new” fact presented in the present 

motion for reconsideration is that Plaintiff now has someone to “assist him to communicate with 

the court in this matter.” (ECF No. 52 at 1.) Plaintiff also now provides the sworn declaration of 

another prisoner, Troy A. Rhodes, who testifies to his own belief that “Plaintiff has some serious 

Case 1:14-cv-00750-LJO-EPG Document 53 Filed 12/22/16 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

medical problems that may be part of his suffering a stroke,” and that Plaintiff is unable to 

communicate effectively due to those health issues. (Id. at 11-12.) Mr. Rhodes, however, is not a 

medical professional. Absent medical evidence, the Court cannot evaluate properly Plaintiff’s 

request for reconsideration. 

Therefore, the Court will give Plaintiff until February 3, 2017, to submit medical 

documentation in support of his motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff should submit medical 

records showing the severity of his condition, including any medical documentation indicating 

why he might have difficulty communicating, and/or any medical records showing that he was in 

the hospital or under the care of a physician at the time he was required to oppose the motion to 

dismiss. After Plaintiff submits the additional evidence, Defendants shall have 14 days to file a 

response to the motion for reconsideration. If the Court grants the motion for reconsideration, it 

may request further briefing regarding the pending motion to dismiss, but does not do so at this 

time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00750-LJO-EPG Document 53 Filed 12/22/16 Page 3 of 3