Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00436/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00436-9/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT J. GONZALES, Program 

Sergeant at CSP-Corcoran; et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:17-cv-00436-DAD-GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. No. 61)

Plaintiff Larry Smith is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

Before the court is plaintiff’s request for reconsideration (Doc. No. 61) of the 

undersigned’s February 19, 2020 order adopting in part (Doc. No. 57) the assigned magistrate 

judge’s November 15, 2019 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 52). In that order, the court 

granted in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 36.) and dismissed certain 

claims and defendants from this action. (See Doc. No. 57.) 

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 

Case 1:17-cv-00436-KES-GSA Document 63 Filed 03/12/20 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

27

28

2

raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 

raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 

F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in 

original).

In the pending motion for reconsideration, plaintiff notes that Correctional Officer 

(“C/O”) Fritz is female and asserts that C/O Fritz was present during the two incidents on 

September 24, 2013, that are the bases of plaintiff’s first and sixth claims for excessive force and 

a failure to protect. (Doc. No. 61; see Doc. No. 12 (“FAC”) at 6, 20–22.) Based on that

assertion, plaintiff argues that C/O Fritz was improperly dismissed from this action. (Id.) 

However, the magistrate judge had concluded in his findings and recommendations that 

plaintiff failed to allege that C/O Fritz was present during the incident that gave rise to his 

excessive force claim (Doc. No. 52 at 30), and that plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative 

remedies as to his failure to protect claim. (Doc. No. 52 at 24 n.16, 28) The court has rereviewed plaintiff’s FAC, his inmate appeal No. CSPC-2-13-07568 (plaintiff’s administrative 

appeal related to the claims in question in this civil action) (the “appeal”), and the parties’ 

statements of undisputed facts and concludes that there is no basis upon which to grant 

reconsideration of its order. 

In appealing the incident that serves as the basis of his claim of excessive force presented 

in this case, plaintiff alleged that “Sgt. J. Gonzales, C/O Johnson, C/O Florez, C/O Miner, C/O E. 

Castro, C/O Potzernitz, & one more C/O entered the holding area. . . . I squatted & coughed & 

was tackled by them.” (Doc. No. 39, Ex. C at 156–58.) There is no mention or suggestion in 

plaintiff’s FAC of C/O Fritz being present during that incident. (See FAC at 6) (describing the 

same incident and alleging that Sgt. J. Gonzales and C/Os Johnson, Castro, Miner, Florez, 

Potzernitz, and Scaife—and not C/O Fritz—came into the holding cage area to search him for 

contraband and that Sgt. J. Gonzales then ordered them to attack plaintiff).

Although plaintiff does reference C/O Fritz in the inmate appeal when he describes the 

events immediately preceding C/O Johnson’s alleged use of excessive force against him (see Doc. 

No. 39, Ex. C at 156), plaintiff did not allege in his inmate appeal, and therefore could not have 

Case 1:17-cv-00436-KES-GSA Document 63 Filed 03/12/20 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

27

28

3

exhausted, his current claim that C/O Fritz failed to protect him from C/O Johnson’s alleged use 

of excessive force. (Doc. No. 52 at 30.)

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 61) is denied

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00436-KES-GSA Document 63 Filed 03/12/20 Page 3 of 3