Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01153/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01153-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDELL HOPKINS,

CDCR #V-97737,

Civil No. 13cv1153 GPC (PCL)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 4)

vs.

DANIEL PARAMO; K. SEIBEL;

R. OLSON; J. RAMIRES;

Defendants.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I.

Plaintiff, Randell Hopkins, a state prisoner, and proceeding in pro se, initiallyfiled a civil

rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 14, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) In addition,

Plaintiff filed a certified copy of his prisoner trust fund account statement which the Court

construed to be a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a). (ECF No. 2.) On June 27, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP

and sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b). (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended

Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court but instead,

C:\Users\lc2curiel\AppData\Local\Temp\notes66F5D4\13cv1153-Dny Reconsideration.wpd, 8513 1 12cv3049 H (PCL)

Case 3:13-cv-01153-GPC-PCL Document 7 Filed 08/05/13 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

Plaintiff has filed a “Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 4.)

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

A. Motion for Reconsideration

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

reconsideration. However, a motion for reconsideration may be construed as a motion to alter 1

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). Reconsideration under Rule 60 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 justifying relief. 

FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b).

In his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff begins by informing the Court that he intends

to add three additional Defendants to this action. (ECF No. 4 at 1.) Because these proposed

Defendants and the additional factual allegations Plaintiff sets forth in his Motion were not

contained in the original Complaint, there is no portion of the Court’s June 27, 2013 Order that

warrants reconsideration. If Plaintiff wishes to add new Defendants and new claims, he must

follow the Court’s instructions permitting him leave to file an Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff does argue that the Court erred in dismissing the claims against Warden Paramo

based on respondeat superior grounds. (ECF No. 4 at 1-2.) Plaintiff argues that as the Warden,

Defendant Paramo “knows everything about our behavioral reinforcement and punishment with

our discipline.” (Id. at 1.) As the Court stated in the June 27, 2013 Order, supervisory prison

officials may only be held liable for the allegedly unconstitutional violations of a subordinate

if Plaintiff sets forth allegations which show: (1) how or to what extent they personally

participated in or directed a subordinate’s actions, and (2) in either acting or failing to act, they

However, Local Rule 7.1(i) does permit motions for reconsideration. Under Local Rule 1

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 reconsideration within “twenty -eight (28)

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

C:\Users\lc2curiel\AppData\Local\Temp\notes66F5D4\13cv1153-Dny Reconsideration.wpd, 8513 2 12cv3049 H (PCL)

Case 3:13-cv-01153-GPC-PCL Document 7 Filed 08/05/13 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

were an actual and proximate cause of the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. (ECF

No. 3 at 7 citing Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). In Plaintiff’s Motion and

his original Complaint, Plaintiff refers to Defendant Paramo’s involvement in general terms

based on his supervisory capacity for which he cannot be held liable unless Plaintiff sets forth

specific factual allegations as required by Johnson. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration provides the

Court with no newly discovered evidence, fails to show clear error, or that the Court rendered

a manifestly unjust decision. Plaintiff further fails to identify any intervening changes in

controlling law that would demand reconsideration of the Court’s June 27, 2013 Order. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF

No. 4.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 5, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

C:\Users\lc2curiel\AppData\Local\Temp\notes66F5D4\13cv1153-Dny Reconsideration.wpd, 8513 3 12cv3049 H (PCL)

Case 3:13-cv-01153-GPC-PCL Document 7 Filed 08/05/13 Page 3 of 3