Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02331/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02331-1/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JLS\07cv2331-DenyReconsideration.wpd.01May08 -1- 07cv2331

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ALLEN,

CDCR #H-43289,

Civil No. 07-2331 JLS (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

 [Doc. No. 14]

 vs.

TIMOTHY J. REILLY, 

Defendant.

On December 12, 2007, Michael Allen (“Plaintiff”), an inmate currently incarcerated at

Calipatria State Prison located in Calipatria, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), along with a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). 

On January 11, 2008, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, denied

Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO and dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) & 1915A(b). See Jan. 11, 2008 Order at 6-7. Specifically, the Court

informed Plaintiff that he could not proceed with his civil rights claim against the Deputy Public

Case 3:07-cv-02331-JLS-MDD Document 17 Filed 05/01/08 Page 1 of 4
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

 However, Local Rule 7.1(i) does permit motions for reconsideration. Under Local Rule

7.1(i)(1), a party may apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition

for any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part....”S.D.

CAL. CIVLR 7.1(i). The party seeking reconsideration must show “what new or different facts and

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.”

Id. Local Rule 7.1(i)(2), however, only permits motions for re consideration within “30 days of the

entry of the ruling.” 

2

 Rule 59(e) motions must be filed “no later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.”

FED.R.CIV.P. 59(e). Under Rule 60(b), however, a motion for “relief from judgment or order” may be

filed within a “reasonable time,” but usually must be filed “not more than one year after the judgment,

order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b). Reconsideration may be granted in

the case of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence;

or (3) fraud; or if (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) for any other

reason justifies relief. FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b). 

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JLS\07cv2331-DenyReconsideration.wpd.01May08 -2- 07cv2331

Defender because he is not a “person acting under color of state law” which is an essential

element of a § 1983 action. Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312,

317-18 (1981)). Nonetheless, the Court provided Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an

Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. (Id.

at 7.) On January 30, 2008, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint but the Court found that

he failed to correct the problems previously identified by the Court. Thus, on March 19, 2008,

the Court once again dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint because he failed to name

a “state actor” as set forth by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Mar. 19, 2008 Order at 3. Plaintiff now

seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order because he believes that the Court should have

analyzed his access to courts claim and should have found that Defendant Reilly was a “state

actor” for purposes of § 1983. (Pl.’s Mot. at 1-2.)

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

A. Standard of Review

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for

reconsideration.1

 However, a motion for reconsideration may be construed as a motion to alter

or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b).2

 See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489

U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir.

1994). In Osterneck, the Supreme Court stated that “a postjudgment motion will be considered

a Rule 59(e) motion where it involves ‘reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a

decision on the merits.’” Id. at 174 (quoting White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Employ’t Sec.,

Case 3:07-cv-02331-JLS-MDD Document 17 Filed 05/01/08 Page 2 of 4
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JLS\07cv2331-DenyReconsideration.wpd.01May08 -3- 07cv2331

455 U.S. 445, 451 (1982)). Under Rule 59(e), “[r]econsideration is appropriate if the district

court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. There

may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration.” School Dist.

No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).

B. Discussion

In both Plaintiff’s original Complaint, as well as his First Amended Complaint, he

attempted to hold the Deputy Public Defender appointed to represent him in his criminal

proceedings, liable for an access to courts claim because he failed to promptly turn over files to

Plaintiff. As the Court informed Plaintiff in both Orders, a Deputy Public Defender is not

considered a “state actor” for § 1983 purposes. See Georgia v. McCullom, 505 U.S. 42, 53

(1992); Polk County, 454 U.S. at 320-25. Plaintiff seeks to convince the Court in his Motion

that he should be able to proceed with his access to courts claim despite not being able to show

that the Defendant is the proper Defendant in a 1983 action. Case law is clear that no matter

how ineffective Plaintiff maintains Defendant Reilly was in failing to turn over his case files in

a prompt manner, he is not a “state actor.” See Miranda v. Clark County, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th

Cir. 2003) (en banc) (finding that public defender was not a state actor subject to suit under

§ 1983 because, so long as he performs the traditional role of an attorney for a client, “his

function,” no matter how ineffective, is “to represent his client, not the interests of the state or

county.”).

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has provided no newly discovered evidence, has failed

to show clear error or that the Court rendered a manifestly unjust decision, and has further failed

to identify any intervening changes in controlling law that would demand reconsideration of the

Court’s Order. School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. 

////

////

////

////

Case 3:07-cv-02331-JLS-MDD Document 17 Filed 05/01/08 Page 3 of 4
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JLS\07cv2331-DenyReconsideration.wpd.01May08 -4- 07cv2331

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 14].

The Clerk of Court shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 1, 2008

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02331-JLS-MDD Document 17 Filed 05/01/08 Page 4 of 4