Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00508/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00508-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

DARRYL DUNSMORE,

CDCR #AD-6237,

Civil No. 14cv0508 LAB (JMA)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

(ECF Doc. Nos. 11, 13)

vs.

PARAMO; LT. GARZA; HAMILTON;

NEOTTI; BRENDA CASH; JANE DOE;

JOHN DOE; JOHN/JANE DOE,

Defendants.

Currentlybefore the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Proceed IFP under Imminent Danger”

which the Court has construed as a Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF Doc. No. 11.) In this

Motion, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s April 23, 2014 Order denying Plaintiff’s

Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In addition,

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (ECF Doc. No. 13.)

I.

Procedural History

On March 5, 2014, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a Motion to Proceed IFP.

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\14cv0508-Dny Reconsideration & TRO.wpd 1 14cv0508 LAB (JMA)

Case 3:14-cv-00508-LAB-JMA Document 22 Filed 05/27/14 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

Finding three prisoner civil actions filed by Plaintiff had been previously dismissed as

“frivolous, malicious, or [for] fail[ing] to state a claim,” the Court denied him leave to proceed

IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and dismissed the action for failure to prepay the entire

$400 civil filing fee as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). See April 23, 2014 Order, ECF Doc.

No. 5 at 5.

II.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

A. Standard of Review

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). Under Rule 60, a motion for “relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding” may

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

of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” FED.R.CIV.P. 60(c). 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).

B. Plaintiff’s Arguments

In the Court’s April 23, 2014 Order, the Court found that Plaintiff was not entitled to

proceed IFP and his Complaint failed to meet the criteria to support finding an exception to the

1915(g) rule. Specifically, in order to proceed IFP in this matter, Plaintiff would have to show

that he “faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.”Andrews v.

Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (hereafter “Cervantes”) (quoting 28 U.S.C.

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.

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\14cv0508-Dny Reconsideration & TRO.wpd 2 14cv0508 LAB (JMA)

Case 3:14-cv-00508-LAB-JMA Document 22 Filed 05/27/14 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

§ 1915(g)). The claims that Plaintiff raised in his Complaint have been previously litigated by

Plaintiff in separate matters. 

Plaintiff claims in his current Motion that he is in “imminent danger” and therefore,

should be permitted to proceed IFP. (See Pl.’s Mot. for Recon., ECF Doc. No. 11 at 5.) 

Specifically, Plaintiff states that “directly after Plaintiff’s complaint was denied the Defendants

retaliated by transferring Plaintiff back to C yard in order to punish the Plaintiff for his litigation

efforts.” (Id.) Plaintiff points to Exhibit “A1" which is a notice of classification hearing form

dated April 25, 2014. (Id., Ex. A1.) However, the Ninth Circuit made clear that in order to be

able to claim the “imminent danger exception, the Court can only consider “the conditions a

prisoner faces at the time the complaint was filed, not at some earlier or later time.” Cervantes,

493 F.3d at 1053. By Plaintiff’s own admission, the facts upon which he is basing his claims

of being in “imminent danger” occurred after Plaintiff filed this action. The alleged retaliatory

transfer occurred more than a month after Plaintiff filed his Complaint and thus, Plaintiff still

is unable to demonstrate that he was in imminent danger at the time he filed this action.

A motion for reconsideration cannot be granted merely because Plaintiff is unhappy with

the judgment, frustrated by the Court’s application of the facts to binding precedent or because

he disagrees with the ultimate decision. See 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller Federal

Practice & Procedure 2d § 2858 (Supp. 2007) (citing Edwards v. Velvac, Inc., 19 F.R.D. 504,

507 (D. Wis. 1956)). Plaintiff has failed to provide any factual or evidentiary support for any

basis under Rule 60(b) that would justify vacating the Court’s April 23, 2014 Order.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

III.

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

Plaintiff seeks a restraining order on claims that he is receiving inadequate medical care. 

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1)(A), the Court may only issue a temporary

restraining order if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will results to the movant before the adverse

party can be heard in opposition.” Id. Here, Plaintiff cannot meet these threshold requirements. 

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\14cv0508-Dny Reconsideration & TRO.wpd 3 14cv0508 LAB (JMA)

Case 3:14-cv-00508-LAB-JMA Document 22 Filed 05/27/14 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

A court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the

federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v.

Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d

801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens

Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff has already litigated the

claims he raises in his request for a restraining order in Dunsmore v. San Diego County Sheriff’s

Dep’t, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 11cv0083 IEG (WVG). Therefore, he is unable to show the

likelihood of “immediate and irreparable injury.” FED.R.CIV.P. 65(b)(1)(A).

In addition, Plaintiff is required to demonstrate “any efforts made to give notice” of the

restraining order request, along with the “reasons why [notice] should not be required.” 

FED.R.CIV.P. 65(b)(1)(B). Here, Plaintiff does not provide any indication whether he attempted

to give notice to any individuals of his request for a temporary restraining order. Accordingly,

for all these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Restraining Order is DENIED.

IV.

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order (ECF Doc Nos. 11, 13) are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 22, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\14cv0508-Dny Reconsideration & TRO.wpd 4 14cv0508 LAB (JMA)

Case 3:14-cv-00508-LAB-JMA Document 22 Filed 05/27/14 Page 4 of 4