Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00347/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00347-12/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KEENAN WILKINS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PAUL GONZALES, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0347 KJM KJN P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion asking that the 

court reconsider its March 31, 2017 order, ECF No. 33. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that 

portion of the order that dismissed Warden Jeff Macomber and Director Kelly Harrington as 

defendants and plaintiff’s equal protection claims and denied leave to file a third amended 

complaint. Plaintiff also seeks reconsideration of that part of the order that informed plaintiff that 

requests for court orders, including requests for appointment of counsel, must be made by motion 

prepared in accordance with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b) and Local Rule 230(l) 

(E.D.Cal.). 

 A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 

1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). Generally speaking, “[r]econsideration is appropriate if the district 

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

Case 2:16-cv-00347-KJM-KJN Document 54 Filed 08/09/17 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 2

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

1263. 

 Defendant Macomber was dismissed from this action on the ground that there was 

nothing in plaintiff’s grievances, and no other allegations, that showed defendant Macomber “had 

knowledge of [plaintiff’s] retaliation claim against the defendants who imposed the visitation 

restriction.” ECF No. 19 at 14; ECF No. 20; ECF No. 33. The additional letters attached to 

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration do not change this finding or the court’s reasons for 

dismissing defendant Macomber, nor do they support a finding that plaintiff should have been 

granted leave to amend as to defendant Macomber. 

 Defendant Harrington was dismissed because plaintiff had “not pled sufficient 

facts demonstrating” the involvement of defendant Harrington in the events complained of. ECF 

No. 19 at 15-16; ECF No. 20; ECF No. 33. The letters attached to plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration do not cure this defect, nor do they support a finding that plaintiff should have 

been granted leave to amend as to defendant Harrington. Only one of the letters predates the 

filing of this action, and that letter contains only general assertions that are not sufficient to 

support a finding that defendant Harrington was involved in the events complained of. 

 Finally, there is no basis for reconsideration of that part of the court’s order that 

instructed plaintiff concerning the proper procedure for requesting court orders, including 

appointment of counsel. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon 

reconsideration, the court’s March 31, 2017 order, ECF No. 33, is confirmed. This order resolves 

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 37. 

DATED: August 9, 2017. 

Case 2:16-cv-00347-KJM-KJN Document 54 Filed 08/09/17 Page 2 of 2