Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01120/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01120-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

CECILIA FRAHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SURYDVARA, et.al.,

Defendants.

 /

1: 06-CV-1120 AWI NEW (DLB) P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Document #21)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On October 23, 2006, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On October 25, 2006, the

Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that recommended: (1) This action

proceed on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed October 23, 2006, against defendant Surydevara

on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claim; (2) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim

against defendant Suryadevara arising from Dr. Ashraf’s medical report containing false

information and defendant Spaeder’s statement to plaintiff be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted; and (3) and Defendants Patrick, Tilton, Dovey, Sillen,

Schwarzenegger, Iyer, Cane, Karr, Bennie, Orong, Heskitt, and Spaeder be dismissed from this

action based on plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted.

Plaintiff did not object to the Findings and Recommendations. However, on December

4, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint to add supplemental state law claims and

a federal claim. On March 14, 2007, the court ordered that: (1) The Findings and

Recommendations, filed October 25, 2006, were adopted; (2) This action would proceed on

Case 1:06-cv-01120-AWI -MJS Document 24 Filed 05/29/07 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

plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed October 23, 2006, against defendant Suryadevara on

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claim; (3) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim

against defendant Suryadevara arising from Dr. Ashraf’s medical report containing false

information and defendant Spaeder’s statement to plaintiff were DISMISSED for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted; (4) Defendants Patrick, Tilton, Dovey, Sillen,

Schwarzenegger, Iyer, Cane, Karr, Bennie, Orong, Heskitt, and Spaeder were dismissed based on

plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted; and (5) Plaintiff’s motion

seeking leave to amend was denied.

On April 9, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion requesting the court review the court’s order

dismissing a claim and defendant. The court construes this motion as a motion for

reconsideration of the March 14, 2007 order. Plaintiff contends that she should be allowed to

amend her complaint to contain state claims because she is in the process of filing a claim with

the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. Plaintiff also contends that

defendant Suryadevara is liable for Dr. Ashraf’s actions based on the doctrine of respondeat

superior and because defendant Suryadevara signed off on appeals concerning Dr. Ashraf.

The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d

1185, 1198 (9 Cir.1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9 Cir.1992). th th

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to make

new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood

Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9 Cir.1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the th

court to rethink what it has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112,

1116 (D.Ariz.1998). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with

the Court's decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before

rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.” U.S. v. Westlands

Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 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 (9 Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must

th

set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior

Case 1:06-cv-01120-AWI -MJS Document 24 Filed 05/29/07 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

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 (9 Cir. 1987). th

Compliance with the California Tort Claims Act is a substantive element of a plaintiff’s

cause of action. United States v. State of California, 655 F.2d 914, 918 (9th Cir.1980);

Hernandez v. McClanahan, 996 F.Supp. 975, 979 (N.D. Cal. 1998); see also Willis v. Reddin,

418 F.2d 702, 704 (1969) (“In California statutes or ordinances which condition the right to sue

the sovereign upon timely filing of claims and actions are more then procedural requirements. 

They are elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action and conditions precedent to the maintenance

of the action”); City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.3d 447, 454 (1974) (“the claims

statutes require timely filing of a proper claim as condition precedent to the maintenance of the

action”). Because Plaintiff’s administrative process is not yet completed, Plaintiff has not

complied with the California Tort Claims Act. See Dujardin v. Ventura County Gen. Hosp., 69

Cal.App.3d 350, 355 (1977) ("Timely compliance with the claim filing requirements and

rejection of the claim by the governmental agency must be pleaded in a complaint in order to

state a cause of action"). Thus, the court cannot consider Plaintiff’s tort claims at this time. 

In addition, the court did not error in dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against defendant

Suryadevara based on Dr. Ashraf’s actions. There is no respondeat superior liability under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9 Cir.2002). To the extent Plaintiff th

believes defendant Suryadevara is liable for Dr. Ashraf’s negligence, Plaintiff has failed to fully

comply with the California Tort Claims Act. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion requesting the court review the dismissed claim and

defendant, which has been construed as a motion for reconsideration, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01120-AWI -MJS Document 24 Filed 05/29/07 Page 3 of 3