Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05397/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05397-12/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

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAUMLER, et.al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 5397 OWW SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 59.)

Christopher Lee Jenkins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed the instant action on April 16, 2002. On August 12, 2002, plaintiff filed an

Amended Complaint. Plaintiff moved to submit Second Amended Complaint and lodged the

complaint on January 9, 2003. The Court granted plaintiff’s request and the Second Amended

Complaint was filed on April 2, 2003. Also on April 2, 2003, the Court dismissed the Second

Case 1:02-cv-05397-LJO -SMS Document 69 Filed 02/26/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Amended Complaint with leave to amend. A Third Amended Complaint was filed by plaintiff

on June 27, 2003. Plaintiff moved to amend the Third Amended Complaint on September 2,

2003. The request was granted on November 7, 2003, plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended

Complaint. 

On March 9, 2005, the Court dismissed the Fourth Amended Complaint with leave to

amend and informed Plaintiff that he could file a Fifth Amended Complaint curing the defects

outlined by the Court, or inform the Court that he wished to proceed on the claims found

cognizable and dismiss those not cognizable. Plaintiff filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on June

6, 2005, and the case stayed pending awaiting screening by the Court. 

On July 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion informing the Court that he wished to proceed

on the retaliation claim against Defendant Baumler which the Court found cognizable in the

Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff also indicated that he wished to dismiss all other claims

against the Defendants and that he wished to dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint itself. The

Court then issued a separate order granting Plaintiff’s request and issuing a Recommendation to

dismiss all remaining claims and defendants from the action. This meant that the action would

proceed only on the retaliation claim against Defendant Baumler as alleged and found cognizable

in the Fourth Amended Complaint. The Court also issued an Order finding service of the

Complaint appropriate and directed the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff the appropriate

documents to complete in order to have the Fourth Amended Complaint served on Defendant

Baumler. Plaintiff completed and returned these documents to the Court on September 7, 2006.

This Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations on October 4, 2006, and an Order issued

by the Magistrate directing the U.S. Marshal to serve the Fourth Amended Complaint on

Defendant Baumler on behalf of Plaintiff. The summons was returned executed on December

26,2006. 

On December 26, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Set Aside the Court’s Order adopting

the Findings and Recommendations dismissing the Fifth Amended Complaint and re-open that

Amended Complaint. During the pendency of this Motion, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss

the Complaint for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff has not yet

Case 1:02-cv-05397-LJO -SMS Document 69 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 5
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

filed an Opposition to the Motion. 

B. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

In the Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff states that after reading the Court’s Order

issued on March 9, 2005, dismissing the Fourth Amended Complaint with leave to amend,

Plaintiff feels that the Court’s granting his subsequent request for dismissal of all defendants (and

the Fifth Amended Complaint filed in the interim) and claims “was not the proper course to take

according to the rules and laws mentioned in that Order.” Motion at 1. Plaintiff states that the

Court’s Order dismissing found the Fourth Amended Complaint stated a cognizable claims

against Defendants Elliot, Fields, Zinani, and Hartung and also that if Plaintiff could show a rules

violation to have been found invalid, he could have a cognizable claim against Defendant

Cuevas. Plaintiff states that he now believes that he properly cured these deficiencies in the Fifth

Amended Complaint. Plaintiff states that after reviewing the Fifth Amended Complaint carefully

and the Court’s Order dismissing the Fourth Amended Complaint with leave to amend, he “does

not see anything so incorrect that warrants the Court’s granting of his request to dismiss the Fifth

Amended Complaint and proceed against only Defendant Baumler for retaliation. Plaintiff asks

that the Court now allow him to withdraw his prior Motion and resurrect the Fifth Amended

Complaint. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment

on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an

adverse party, . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, in

any event “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” 

Id.

The Court has examined its Order dismissing the Fourth Amended Complaint with leave

to amend. This Order clearly informs Plaintiff that he states a cognizable claim against

Defendant Baumler for retaliation and also against Defendants Elliot, Fields and Harthung for

failure to protect. Plaintiff did not provide sufficient information, however, to allege a claim

Case 1:02-cv-05397-LJO -SMS Document 69 Filed 02/26/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

against Defendant Cuevas or for violations of due process or the Eighth Amendment. The Fourth

Amended Complaint was therefore, dismissed and Plaintiff given the option of either proceeding

on those claims found cognizable and not filing a Fifth Amended Complaint or to file a Fifth

Amended Complaint. As stated above, Plaintiff filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on June 6,

2005. However, before the Court could conduct a screening of this Complaint, on July 28, 2006,

Plaintiff submitted a pleading titled “Motion to Dismiss” in which he states that he wished to

“proceed on his claim regarding Defendant Baumler only and wished to voluntarily dismiss the

remaining claims and defendants.” (Motion to Proceed [Court Doc. 49] at 1.) The Motion also

specifically asks that the Court, because it had not yet screened the Fifth Amended Complaint,

“dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint in its entirety ...” Id. at 2. 

According to the Court docket, on August 16, 2005, the Court construed Plaintiff’s

Motion to Dismiss as a Notice of his Intent not to file a Fifth Amended Complaint. (Doc. 45.) 

The Court then did as Plaintiff asked by striking the Fifth Amended Complaint from the record

and issuing Findings and Recommendations to proceed only on the claim against Defendant

Baumler for retaliation. (Docs. 50, 51.) Plaintiff alleges now, in the attached declaration, that he

now feels the defects found by the Court in its Order dismissing the Fourth Amended Complaint

were properly cured by the Fifth Amended Complaint. 

Plaintiff’s belief that the defects of his Fourth Amended Complaint were properly cured

by the Fifth Amended Complaint and for this reason the Court should reverse itself is not

sufficient grounds to warrant granting of reconsideration. The Court did not screen the Fifth

Amended Complaint because Plaintiff moved to dismiss it in its entirety. Plaintiff also moved to

dismiss all claims but that against Defendant Baumler. The Court granted his request. It appears

that Plaintiff took this course of action to get his case moving along. Now that service has been

ordered and the case is proceeding, Plaintiff seeks to turn the clock back. As noted by Plaintiff,

this case has been pending since 2002 and Plaintiff has had several opportunities to cure his

pleading defects which is evidenced by the fact that this case is proceeding on the Fourth

Amended Complaint. This Court cannot delay the case further to allow Plaintiff to terminate the

current proceedings to put it back in the position it was more than a year ago simply because he

Case 1:02-cv-05397-LJO -SMS Document 69 Filed 02/26/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

had a change of heart. In any event, Plaintiff’s does not present sufficient grounds to meet any of

the requirements of Rule 60(b). Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s

Order adopting the Findings and Recommendations is DENIED. 

C. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Reconsideration filed on December 26, 2006, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05397-LJO -SMS Document 69 Filed 02/26/07 Page 5 of 5