Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05023/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05023-9/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARNOLD LEVI, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

HIRSCH, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-03-5023 REC/SMS P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 58)

On December 7, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for

reconsideration of the court's October 19, 2005 Order denying

plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Complaint. 

In conjunction with the October 19 Order, the Magistrate

Judge recommended that the court grant plaintiff's motion to

dismiss the Doe defendants. In his objections to the

recommendation, plaintiff asserted that the court erred in

denying his motion to supplement the Complaint. The district

court ruled that the appropriate mechanism to raise that claim

was in a motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Rule 72-

Case 1:03-cv-05023-LJO -SMS Document 59 Filed 12/08/05 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

2

303, Local Rules of Practice. Plaintiff then filed the instant

motion for reconsideration.

In the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff asserts that he

did not seek to add new defendants or new claims to the instant

action, but that he seeks to "include action by both Hirsch and

Traynham of the same nature alleged in the Complaint which are

directly related to those claims alleged in the Complaint but

which occurred subsequent to the filing of the complaint." 

Plaintiff explains that he alleged in the Complaint that Dr.

Hirsch and Lt. Traynham violated his Eighth Amendment rights by

denying him medical care and that such denial continued even

after the filing of this action. Thus, plaintiff seeks to add

these continuing allegations to the Complaint.

The local rule provides that resolution of a motion for

reconsideration is governed by a clearly erroneous or contrary to

law standard. Motions for reconsideration must be filed within

ten court days from the date of service of the ruling on the

parties.

Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is untimely as it was

filed well beyond the ten days allotted by the local rule. 

Furthermore, the court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's

ruling. Plaintiff has made clear that he seeks to add new

instances of alleged constitutional violations that are identical

in nature to those alleged in the Complaint. However, the Prison

Litigation Reform Act not only requires that each claim be

exhausted, but that each allegation of a constitutional violation

Case 1:03-cv-05023-LJO -SMS Document 59 Filed 12/08/05 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

3

be exhausted prior to filing the Complaint. McKinney v. Carey,

311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir 2002). Thus, even if each of

the named defendants allegedly violated plaintiff's

constitutional rights in the same manner but on separate

occasions after the Complaint was filed, each instance

constitutes a new claim that must be exhausted prior to filing

the action. The similarity of the events does not overcome this

exhaustion requirement. This rule of exhaustion was explained in

the Magistrate Judge's Order denying plaintiff's motion to

supplement. Therefore, that Order is neither clearly erroneous

nor contrary to law.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05023-LJO -SMS Document 59 Filed 12/08/05 Page 3 of 3