Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00665/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00665-18/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK JONES, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN BURK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00665-LJO-YNP PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

(Doc. 52)

Plaintiff Frederick Jones, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration of the Court’s March 26, 2009 order partially granting Defendants’

motion to dismiss. (Docs. #50, 52.)

The Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiff’s due process

claims based on the loss of privileges in prison and denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss with

respect to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim premised on the deprivation of certain religious items. 

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in dismissing his due process

claims.

Under Local Rule 230(j), any motion for reconsideration must demonstrate “what new or

different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion” and “why the facts or circumstances were

not shown at the time of the prior motion.”

///

1

Case 1:06-cv-00665-LJO -SKO Document 76 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is not based on any new or different facts that did not

exist at the time of the prior motion. Plaintiff argues that his due process claims should not be

dismissed because “fresh air” is not a “privilege” and that Defendants cannot deprive Plaintiff of

fresh air without adequate due process. Plaintiff did not raise any claims in his complaint based on

the denial of “fresh air” and Plaintiff did not make any argument in his opposition to Defendants’

motion to dismiss based on the denial of “fresh air.” Plaintiff’s due process claims were construed

to be based on the loss of privileges such as television, yard and canteen. Defendants argued that

they were entitled to dismissal because the loss of those privileges did not implicate any

constitutionally protected liberty interest. The Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss based

on that argument. Plaintiff attempts to save his due process claim by presenting new facts and

arguments in his motion for reconsideration that should have been made in his complaint or his

opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has not explained why he did not present this

new argument in his opposition or in his complaint. Plaintiff may not raise his new “fresh air”

argument nor may Plaintiff raise a new “fresh air” due process claim via his motion for

reconsideration. The remaining arguments in Plaintiff’s motion are unclear and fail to address why

Plaintiff is entitled to reconsideration or why Plaintiff is entitled to relief from the Court’s order.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on

April 10, 2009, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 3, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:06-cv-00665-LJO -SKO Document 76 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 2