Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01839/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01839-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN VALDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD,

Defendant.

1:14-cv-01839-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 19)

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. ' 1983. He is proceeding on a Third Amended Complaint that, as screened, 

states due process and equal protection claims against multiple Defendants. (See ECF 

Nos. 16, 18.) Relevant here, the Court determined that Plaintiff stated an equal 

protection claim based on his allegation that Defendants discriminated against him (an 

inmate classified as a gang member) by not providing him equal access to housing and 

activities that other similar discipline-free inmates are allowed to receive. 

Plaintiff has since filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Screening 

Case 1:14-cv-01839-AWI-JLT Document 31 Filed 02/12/16 Page 1 of 4
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

Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (ECF No. 19.) He contends that 

the Court erred when it applied a rational basis standard to his equal protection claim. 

He argues that a strict scrutiny standard should apply because his religious freedoms 

are impinged as a result of his current active prison gang member classification. 

Under Rule 59(e), three grounds may justify reconsideration: (1) an intervening 

change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct 

clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Kern–Tulare Water Dist. v. City of 

Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 

F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988); see also 389 Orange 

Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999); accord School Dist. No. 1J 

v. AC & S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Courts construing Rule 59(e) have 

noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful party to 

“rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present “contentions which might have 

been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F. Supp. 

1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir.

1986); Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991). 

These holdings “reflect[ ] district courts' concerns for preserving dwindling resources and 

promoting judicial efficiency.” Costello, 765 F. Supp. at 1009.

In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of 

final orders of the district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from 

a final order or judgment on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence...; (3) fraud...of an adverse party; (4) 

the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied ... or (6) any other reason 

justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A motion for 

reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the 

... court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is 

an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos 

Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009).

Case 1:14-cv-01839-AWI-JLT Document 31 Filed 02/12/16 Page 2 of 4
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

Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what 

new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were 

not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why 

the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal., 

Local Rule 230(j)(3)-(4).

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. 

Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 

460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a 

strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., 

Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), 

aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

In the Screening Order, the Court held as follows:

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants discriminated against him 

(an inmate classified as a gang member) by not 

providing him equal access to housing and activities that 

other similar discipline-free inmates are allowed to 

receive. Plaintiff also alleges there was no legitimate 

penological purpose for the policy. These allegations are 

sufficient to state an equal protection claim against 

Defendants. 

(ECF No. 18 at 8.) Implicit is that a rational relationship test would apply to Plaintiff’s 

equal protection claim because the class alleged—those inmates classified as a gang 

member—does not involve a suspect class. Plaintiff’s assertion here that his religious 

freedoms are affected by the gang member classification does not alter the Court’s 

analysis. This is because Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants treat him differently 

because of his religion, but instead because of his inmate classification. And since an 

inmate’s classification as a gang member does not constitute a suspect class, see Allen 

v. Hubbard, 2011 WL 6202910, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011), the rational relationship 

test applies to his claim. 

Plaintiff has provided no evidence or circumstances that would satisfy the 

requirements of either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b).

Case 1:14-cv-01839-AWI-JLT Document 31 Filed 02/12/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

For this reason, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration (ECF No. 19) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01839-AWI-JLT Document 31 Filed 02/12/16 Page 4 of 4