Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02868/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02868-1/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\DMS\09cv2868-Mtn Reconsider.wpd 1 09cv2868 DMS (AJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY WAYNE JOHNSON, Jr.,

CDCR #F-58411 Civil No. 09cv2868 DMS (AJB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. No. 6]

vs.

M. GAINS, et al.,

Defendants.

On December 21, 2009, Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State

Prison located in Soledad, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff did not prepay the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to

commence a civil action; instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2]. The Court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because it was duplicative of Johnson v. Gains,

S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 09cv1312 LAB (POR). Plaintiff has now filed a “Motion for

Reconsideration.” [Doc. No. 6].

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-02868-DMS-AJB Document 7 Filed 02/17/10 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

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 “twenty -eight (28)

days after the entry of the ruling, order or judgment sought to be reconsidered.” 

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(c), however, a motion for “relief from judgment or order” may be

filed within a “reasonable time,” but usually must be filed “no more than a year after the entry of

judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” FED.R.CIV.P. 60(c). 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\DMS\09cv2868-Mtn Reconsider.wpd 2 09cv2868 DMS (AJB)

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.,

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 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, he expresses confusion with respect to the

Orders that have been issued in his previous case. Specifically, Plaintiff states that several

claims were dismissed without prejudice in Johnson v. Gains, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No.

09cv1312 LAB (POR). Therefore, Plaintiff decided to re-file those dismissed claims in this

separate action. However, while there were claims dismissed without prejudice in his previous

Case 3:09-cv-02868-DMS-AJB Document 7 Filed 02/17/10 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2868-Mtn Reconsider.wpd 3 09cv2868 DMS (AJB)

case, Plaintiff was also permitted leave to file an amended Complaint in order to try to correct

the problems identified by District Judge Burns. Instead of filing a separate action, Plaintiff

must first attempt to amend his pleading in Johnson v. Gains, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 09cv1312

LAB (POR).

Accordingly, 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. 

II. Conclusion and Order

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 6]. Moreover, the

Court CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would also be frivolous and therefore,

would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United

States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent

appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be frivolous).

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 17, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02868-DMS-AJB Document 7 Filed 02/17/10 Page 3 of 3