Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00889/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00889-4/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

3:17-cv-00889-LAB-JLB

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

SEDRIC EUGENE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JOHN DOE; SERGEANT JOHN DOE; 

LOPEZ; GARCIA; CENTINELA STATE 

PRISON,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00889-LAB-JLB

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION;

(2) VACATING ORDER AND 

CLERK’S JUDGMENT; 

AND

(3) GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE 

TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 23)

Sedric Eugene Johnson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s 

January 16, 2018 Order dismissing the entire action. (ECF No. 23.) 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00889-LAB-JLB Document 24 Filed 03/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:17-cv-00889-LAB-JLB

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

I. Procedural History

On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action. (ECF No. 1.) In addition, Plaintiff filed 

a Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP. (ECF No. 2.) On September 12, 2017, the Court 

GRANTED Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP but simultaneously DISMISSED his 

Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) & § 1915A. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file an 

amended pleading. (Id.)

On October 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF 

No. 18.) The Court, once again, conducted the required sua sponte screening and 

DISMISSED Plaintiff’s FAC for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be 

granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) & § 1915A. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff was 

given thirty (30) days leave to file amended pleading. (Id.) However, that time passed 

and Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Order. Therefore, on January 16, 2018, 

the Court dismissed the action in its entirety for the reasons set forth in the Court’s 

November 28, 2017 Order and for failing to comply with a Court order. (ECF No. 20.)

On February 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s 

January 16, 2018 Order. (ECF No. 23.)

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint

In this Motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to vacate the Court’s Order dismissing the 

entire action on the grounds that Plaintiff mistakenly filed an entirely new action instead 

of filing an amended pleading in this matter. (See Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 23, at 1.) The 

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

reconsideration. However, a motion requesting reconsideration of a matter previously 

decided may be construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) or 

Rule 60(b). 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). 

/ / / 

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00889-LAB-JLB Document 24 Filed 03/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:17-cv-00889-LAB-JLB

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

“A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if ‘(1) the district court is presented with newly 

discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision 

that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” 

Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 998 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Zimmerman v. City of 

Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir. 2001)). This type of motion seeks “a substantive 

change of mind by the court,” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205, 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) 

(quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1983)), and “is 

an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 

F.3d 1253, 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 59(e) may not be used to “‘relitigate old matters, 

or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of 

judgment.’” Stevo Design, Inc. v. SBR Mktg. Ltd., 919 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1117 (D. Nev. 

2013) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d 

ed. 1995)).

In the Court’s November 28, 2017 Order, Plaintiff was given leave to file an 

amended pleading and provided a blank court approved civil rights complaint form for his 

“use and to assist him” in comply with the Court’s Order. (ECF No. 19 at 7.) 

A court may take judicial notice of its own records, see Molus v. Swan, Civil Case 

No. 3:05-cv-00452–MMA-WMc, 2009 WL 160937, *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2009) (citing 

United States v. Author Services, 804 F.2d 1520, 1523 (9th Cir. 1986)); Gerritsen v. 

Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1034 (C.D. Cal. 2015), and “‘may take 

notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, 

if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 

F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council 

v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00889-LAB-JLB Document 24 Filed 03/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:17-cv-00889-LAB-JLB

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

The Court takes judicial notice of Johnson v. Centinela State Prison, et al., S.D. 

Cal. Civil Case No. 17cv2568 CAB (WVG) (Filed Dec. 26, 2017.) This matter involves 

the same facts and the same parties as the action before this Court. The Court notes that 

Plaintiff failed to write the case number on the operative pleading, failed to identify it as 

an amended pleading, and submitted a motion to proceed IFP. (Id., ECF Nos. 1, 2.) For 

these reasons, the Clerk of Court opened this second matter as a new action. In Plaintiff’s 

current Motion, it appears that he was confused by the blank form complaint he received 

and was perhaps unaware that he needed to supply the correct identifying information 

himself. 

For these reasons, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s request and will permit 

Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The Court will provide Plaintiff with 

another blank form but Plaintiff must supply the correct case number and properly 

identify the pleading as a Second Amended Complaint. 

III. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, the Court:

1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 23);

2) VACATES the Court’s January 16, 2018 Order and the Clerk’s Judgment 

(ECF Nos. 20, 21);

3) GRANTS Plaintiff thirty (30) days to file a Second Amended Complaint

which corrects the deficiencies of pleading identified in the Court’s November 28, 2017 

Order. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be complete by itself without reference to 

his original pleading. Defendants not named and any claim not re-alleged in his Amended 

Complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, 

Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended 

pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 

2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an 

amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”).

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00889-LAB-JLB Document 24 Filed 03/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:17-cv-00889-LAB-JLB

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

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with a blank copy 

of its form Complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff must 

provide the correct case number and identify the pleading as his “Second Amended 

Complaint.” 

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended pleading, this Court will enter a final order of 

dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2018

HON. LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00889-LAB-JLB Document 24 Filed 03/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5