Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02911/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02911-10/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:14-cv-02911 BEN (NLS)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAVON LAMAR TORBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM D. GORE, Sheriff of San 

Diego Sheriff Department; DEPUTY 

DAILLY, Sheriff of San Diego Sheriff 

Department; DEPUTY McMAHON, 

Sheriff of San Diego Sheriff Department; 

DEPUTY Y.G. GEBREBIORGIS, Sheriff 

of San Diego Sheriff Department; 

SERGEANT ESTRADA, Sheriff of San 

Diego Sheriff Department; COUNTY OF 

SAN DIEGO; and DOES 1-50,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:14-cv-02911 BEN (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

CLARIFICATION/OBJECTION TO 

DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO AMEND

[Docket No. 128]

Plaintiff Javon Lamar Torbert (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on December 9, 2014. He alleges excessive 

force, cruel and unusual punishment, and deliberate indifference claims arising from an 

alleged incident where one of the Defendants slammed a metal door on Plaintiff’s left 

arm. After summary judgment, only one excessive force claim against one Defendant 

Case 3:14-cv-02911-BEN-AHG Document 130 Filed 12/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:14-cv-02911 BEN (NLS)

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

remains in the case. 

Plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint to add a new claim against 

Defendants for “conspiracy to obstruct justice by committing declaration perjury under 

oath to fraudulently conceal the existence of the surveillance camera located above the 

isolation cell #4 for the incident of October 2, 2014.” (Docket No. 113 at 1.) The motion 

for leave to amend was the fourth iteration of Plaintiff’s request to sanction the 

Defendants for allegedly concealing the existence of a security camera that he claims 

recorded acts related to the October 2, 2014 incident. On October 26, 2016, this Court 

denied Plaintiff’s motion because an amended complaint would be futile and would 

prejudice Defendants. (Docket No. 117.) 

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Clarification/Objection to Denial of Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Amend Obstruction of Justice.” (Docket No. 128.) The Court construes this 

filing as a motion for reconsideration. This is the fifth iteration of Plaintiff’s request for 

the alleged video footage.

For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.

BACKGROUND

The Court’s prior order denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend detailed the 

history of litigation on Plaintiff’s request for the alleged video footage. In short, Plaintiff 

claims that video footage from inside his medical isolation cell exists. Defendants have 

explained that there is no footage from inside the cell, but produced footage from the 

hallway outside the cell. The Court found no good cause to disbelieve Defendants’ 

account that there is no recording of events inside the cell. 

In ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, the Court found that good cause 

did not exist to grant Plaintiff’s motion: 

First, Defendants would be prejudiced now–long after discovery closed and 

after they largely prevailed on summary judgment–if Torbert is allowed to 

file an amended complaint that includes a completely new factual basis for 

relief. Second, the filing of an amended complaint would be futile because 

even if video footage exists from inside the medical isolation cell, Torbert 

Case 3:14-cv-02911-BEN-AHG Document 130 Filed 12/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:14-cv-02911 BEN (NLS)

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

still cannot prevail on his deliberate indifference claim. The Court already 

accepted as true the facts that Torbert alleges are evident in the alleged video 

footage, which include Torbert not receiving medical attention for 13 hours 

and only receiving his regularly-scheduled psychiatric medication and three 

Tylenols for pain. Even assuming these facts were true, this Court still 

found no deliberate indifference because “[n]o objective medical evidence 

shows that either an immediate visit to a doctor was necessary, or that

referral to a neurologist was warranted” during that 13 hour period. See 

R&R, pp.16-17. In sum, the amended complaint and purported missing 

discovery would add nothing to Torbert’s constitutional claims.

(Docket No. 117 at 5.)

Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of this order. 

DISCUSSION

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or 

proceeding upon a showing of mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or “any other 

reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); see Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & 

Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that the catch-all provision should 

be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice).

Motions for reconsideration “should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances.” Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 05-cv-1660-J, 2007 WL 

2456223, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2007). “A motion for reconsideration may not be 

used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably 

have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Life Techs. Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., No. 11-cv00703, 2012 WL 10933209, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2012) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. 

v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). Moreover, motions to reconsider 

are not a platform to relitigate arguments and facts previously considered and rejected. 

See Harrison v. Sofamor/Danek Grp., Inc., No. 94-cv-0692, 1998 WL 1166044, at *3 

(S.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 1998). 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:14-cv-02911-BEN-AHG Document 130 Filed 12/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:14-cv-02911 BEN (NLS)

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

II. WHETHER TO GRANT RECONSIDERATION

It appears that Plaintiff claims that the Court made a mistake in its prior 

ruling. He “asks the Court to review all evidence and allow Plaintiff to file [a] 

motion to allow a look thru [sic] the isolation hallway cell #4 for the requested 

camera, and obstruction on defendants under penalty of perjury.” (Docket No. 128 

at 4.) None of Plaintiff’s arguments are persuasive.

Plaintiff first argues that he never requested video footage from a camera 

inside the cell, and that he always sought footage from a camera placed directly 

outside his cell that monitored events inside the cell. Plaintiff misreads the Court’s 

orders. The Court’s orders are clear that Plaintiff sought footage from a camera 

outside the cell that recorded activities inside it. The Court did not make a mistake 

about the location of the camera.

He also contends that the produced video footage shows another hallway 

camera closer to the incident, and that Defendants never produced footage from his 

closer camera. The Court has re-reviewed the produced footage and fails to find 

other cameras in the hallway.

Plaintiff’s motion seeks to relitigate issues that have been considered and 

rejected several times. This is not proper grounds for a motion for reconsideration. 

The Court readopts its prior conclusion that allowing Plaintiff’s requested relief 

would prejudice Defendants and be futile.

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2016

Case 3:14-cv-02911-BEN-AHG Document 130 Filed 12/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4