Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03316/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03316-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE CARLTON SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. STEPP, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 13-3316 MEJ (PR)

ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING

MOTIONS

(Docket Nos. 75, 78, 79, 85, 86, 92, 93, 

95)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Lawrence Carlton Smith, a prisoner at California State Prison–Los Angeles

County, filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining of conditions at

Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP), High Valley State Prison (HVSP) and Corcoran State

Prison (CSP), where he was formerly incarcerated. The Court screened the complaint and

found it stated cognizable claims for excessive force as against seven defendants at SVSP. 

Plaintiff later voluntarily dismissed one of the seven defendants, defendant Zornes.

On July 2, 2014, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on failure to

exhaust administrative remedies. On March 6, 2015, the Court partially granted defendants’

motion and dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims other than the claim for excessive force as

against defendants Mejia and Garcia relating to an August 27, 2010 incident. The Court

directed defendants to file a second motion for summary judgment addressing the merits of

the remaining claim.

This matter is now before the Court for consideration of several miscellaneous filings

from plaintiff.

Case 3:13-cv-03316-MEJ Document 102 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DISCUSSION

A. Reconsideration of March 6, 2015 Order

Plaintiff has filed four motions for reconsideration of the portion of the Court’s March

6, 2015 order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s claims against

defendants Cermeno and Rodriguez. Dkt. Nos. 75, 78, 80, 92. Motions for reconsideration

are governed by Civil Local Rule 7-9, which states:

(a) Leave of Court Requirement. Before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of

the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may make

a motion before a Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion

for reconsideration of any interlocutory order on any ground set forth in Civil L.R. 7-9

(b). No party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of

Court to file the motion.

(b) Form and Content of Motion for Leave. A motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration must be made in accordance with the requirements of Civil L.R. 7-9.

The moving party must specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion,

and one of the following:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact

or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of

the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party

also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party

applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of

the interlocutory order; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring

after the time of such order; or

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before

such interlocutory order.

(c) Prohibition Against Repetition of Argument. No motion for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying

party in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now

seeks to have reconsidered. Any party who violates this restriction shall be subject to

appropriate sanctions.

Civ. L.R. 7-9(a)-(c).

In violation of the Local Rules, plaintiff failed first to seek leave of court before filing

his motions for reconsideration. On that basis alone, the motions will be denied. Tri-Valley

CARES v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Denial of a motion

as the result of a failure to comply with local rules is well within a district court’s

discretion.”). Plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse his non-compliance with the Court’s

Case 3:13-cv-03316-MEJ Document 102 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

procedural rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995).

Moreover, plaintiff’s motions fail to make the showing required under Civil Local

Rule 7-9 or otherwise to show good cause for reconsideration. Plaintiff submits various

screening notices and assignment notices bearing grievance Log Number SVSP-L-10-02567. 

He claims that the assignment notices were not responded to and that the slips covered

different incidents all bearing the same fake log number. However, there is nothing in these

exhibits establishing that they relate to different claims, let alone that they relate to plaintiff’s

claims against defendants Cermeno and Rodriguez. The Court has already reviewed and

relied on Log Number SVSP-L-10-02567 in denying defendants’ motion for summary

judgment as to the claim against defendants Mejia and Garcia

In short, plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s ruling and merely repeats arguments

which the Court has already considered and rejected. See Civ. L.R. 7-9(c); Fuller v. M.G.

Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Treating the motion for reconsideration as

one brought under Rule 59(e), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the

motion, because the [plaintiffs] presented no arguments which the court had not already

considered and rejected.”). Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration are therefore DENIED.

B. Motions Seeking Court Guidance

Plaintiff has filed four other communications with the Court, which were docketed as

motions. The communications are difficult to understand but two of them appear to request

guidance from the Court on how to respond to defendants’ discovery (dkt. no. 79) and why

the remaining defendants are permitted to file a second motion for summary judgment (dkt.

no. 85). The other two communications express confusion over whether plaintiff has

received all legal mail in this action (dkt. nos. 93, 95). Plaintiff is reminded that the Court

cannot answer legal questions or provide him with any legal advice or research. However,

plaintiff will be provided with a copy of the docket in this action and may request copies of

any docket entries that he believes he never received.

//

//

Case 3:13-cv-03316-MEJ Document 102 Filed 10/16/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration are DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s remaining communications, docketed as motions at docket nos. 79,

85, 93, and 95, have been addressed herein and shall be administratively terminated.

3. The Clerk shall send plaintiff a copy of the docket in this action.

4. Plaintiff is reminded that defendants have filed a motion for summary

judgment on the merits of the remaining claim as against defendants Mejia and Garcia. 

Plaintiff’s opposition thereto is due on or before November 2, 2015. Plaintiff may file a

motion for extension of time provided that it is supported by good cause and filed on or

before November 2, 2015.

This order terminates Docket No. 75, 78, 79, 85, 86, 92, 93, and 95.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

Maria-Elena James

United States Magistrate Judge

October 16, 2015

Case 3:13-cv-03316-MEJ Document 102 Filed 10/16/15 Page 4 of 4