Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02412/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02412-14/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

16cv2412-CAB (MSB)

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

RAUL ARELLANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

BLAHNIK,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv2412-CAB (MSB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[ECF No. 149]

On February 14, 2020, this Court issued an “Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Reconsideration.” (ECF No. 147.) On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed “Motion: 59(e); or 

60(b) in regard to ‘Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration,’” seeking relief 

from the Court’s denial of reconsideration. (ECF No. 149.) 

A. Legal Standard

Plaintiff asserts this motion under, alternatively, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

59(e) or 60(b). (See ECF No. 149 at 1.) As this Court noted when ruling on Plaintiff’s 

previous motion for reconsideration, because “Rule 59(e) ‘clearly contemplates entry of 

judgment as a predicate to any motion,’” and there has been no entry of judgment in 

this case, Rule 59(e) is not the proper standard for the instant motion. See, e.g., Balla v. 

Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 869 F.2d 461, 466-67 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding an order 

Case 3:16-cv-02412-CAB-MSB Document 154 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

16cv2412-CAB (MSB)

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

denying prisoner plaintiffs’ contempt motion and closing all issues except overcrowding 

to relitigation was not a judgment within the meaning of Rule 59(e)). Therefore, the 

Court will apply Rule 60(b) to this motion. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides, in part:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal 

representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following 

reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 

discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been 

discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud 

(whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or 

misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment 

has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment 

that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer 

equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

“Rule 60 provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a 

showing of ‘exceptional circumstances.’” (ECF No. 121 (citing Engleson v. Burlington 

N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994).) Further, Rule 60(b)(1) is not meant to 

remedy a party’s mistaken litigation strategy. Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 

F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We agree that Rule 60(b)(1) is not intended to remedy 

the effects of a litigation decision that a party later comes to regret through 

subsequently-gained knowledge that corrects the erroneous legal advice of counsel.”) 

Because Mr. Arellano is a pro se prisoner, the Court is again mindful of precedent 

directing lenience in the interpretation of Plaintiff’s pleadings. The pleadings of pro se 

litigants are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); see also Small v. Horel, 367 F. App’x 759, 761 

(9th Cir. 2010). This is particularly true in a civil rights case, where “the court must 

construe the pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt.”

Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (The rule of liberal construction is 

“particularly important in civil rights cases.”). Nevertheless, pro se plaintiffs remain 

Case 3:16-cv-02412-CAB-MSB Document 154 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

16cv2412-CAB (MSB)

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

bound by the applicable procedural rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 

1995); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (overruled on other grounds by 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012)); Carter v. Comm’r, 784 F.2d 1006, 

1008-09 (9th Cir. 1986). 

B. Discussion

Here, Plaintiff does not identify on which of the Rule 60(b) grounds he bases his 

request for relief from the Court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the 

Court’s denial of his motion to compel discovery. Nor does he present a basis for doing 

so. Plaintiff’s arguments are essentially that (1) Plaintiff’s failure to mention in his 

Motion to Compel [ECF No. 123] or Reply [ECF No. 132] that he allegedly filed motions 

to compel on the request for production in May and July of 2019 was excusable since he 

did not think those earlier motions were relevant, (ECF No. 149 at 3-5); and (2) that 

Plaintiff’s delay bringing the motion to compel was excused because he could not bring 

the motion to compel without a copy of ECF No. 96 to verify that he had asked 

Defendant for documents, and the Court had not responded to his requests for ECF No. 

96, (id. at 5-6). 

Plaintiff’s first argument, reiterating why he did not mention his alleged May and 

July 2019 Motions to Compel, is similar to the argument he raised in his first motion for 

reconsideration, which this Court has already rejected. (See ECF No. 147 at 5.) Plaintiff 

has presented no new evidence in support of this position. As this Court has previously 

stated, Plaintiff was on notice that the timeliness of his motion was at-issue and that he 

needed to address the entire delay leading up to his Motion to Compel. (Id.) Plaintiff’s 

detailed and shifting explanations for why he didn’t address the entire period of delay 

are not persuasive. The Court further notes that none of the earlier motions to compel 

that Plaintiff vaguely claimed that he “must of written” and sent to the Court for the 

first time in his first Motion for Reconsideration appear on the docket. (See ECF No. 143 

at 2 (claiming to have sent motions in May and July 2019); docket (lacking any entries 

for Plaintiff’s earlier motions to compel).) No evidence has been submitted to 

Case 3:16-cv-02412-CAB-MSB Document 154 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

16cv2412-CAB (MSB)

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

corroborate Plaintiff’s untimely self-serving statements, such as a mail log showing that 

Plaintiff sent the motions he claims to have sent. Under the circumstances, the Court 

has a difficult time being persuaded that the earlier motions were in fact sent to the 

Court. 

Plaintiff’s second argument, that he needed a copy of ECF No. 96 from the Court 

so that he could properly serve Defendant, and that his motion to compel deadline did 

not accrue since he had not resent ECF No. 96 to Defendant is also unavailing. (See ECF 

No. 149 at 5 (“Based on the above [it] is evident that as to my knowledge Defendant had 

not been properly served with 2nd motion for request of documents [a]nd I couldn’t 

serve[] her until I g[o]t from Court a copy of ECF 96 so I can verify it is the document of 

‘Request for Documents,’ and serve Defendant with it. Only then if Defendant fail[ed] 

to respon[d] I could adequately file Motion to Compel.”).) Firstly, Plaintiff claims that he 

has not yet received a copy of ECF No. 96, noting that he continued to request a copy in 

his Motion to Compel in September 2019.

1

 (Id. at 5.) That Plaintiff ultimately filed his 

Motion to Compel when he claims he had never received ECF No. 96 and was still 

requesting a copy, (see ECF No. 123 at 1), makes clear that he never needed the 

document to pursue his Motion to Compel. Second, Plaintiff states that Defendant first 

denied that ECF No. 96 was a motion for production of documents on January 10, 2019. 

If Plaintiff was of the belief that Defendant had not been properly served with the 

request for production at-issue, all Plaintiff needed to do was serve another timely 

request for production. If Plaintiff disagreed, he ought to have pursued a motion to 

compel. There was no reason for Plaintiff to be beholden to ECF No. 96, or to stall 

discovery for many months while purportedly awaiting a copy. 

 

1 The Court notes that in response to Plaintiff’s motions, it ordered the Clerk to send copies of ECF No. 

96 on March 4, 2019 and October 15, 2019 (ECF No. 104 at 2; ECF No. 124.) Plaintiff makes no mention 

of these orders in his briefing. 

Case 3:16-cv-02412-CAB-MSB Document 154 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

16cv2412-CAB (MSB)

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

Finally, Plaintiff’s assertion that he could wait indefinitely to re-serve ECF No. 96, 

and then file a motion to compel if Defendant failed to respond, completely ignores the 

fact that discovery closed in this case on March 22, 2019. (ECF No. 81 at 3.) The 

importance of the discovery deadlines was underscored in this case by the Defendant’s 

many motions to modify discovery deadlines premised on Plaintiff’s refusal to 

participate in discovery for various reasons, which was also the subject of a Motion to 

Dismiss by Defendant. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 67, 97, 109, 126.) Additionally, Plaintiff has 

himself previously filed numerous motions to extend discovery deadlines in this case, 

demonstrating his awareness of the same. (See, e.g., ECF No. 51, 55, 58, 61, 76, 78.) 

Nothing changed in this case to permit Plaintiff to disregard discovery cut-off by nearly 

ten months. 

For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Second Motion for 

Reconsideration. 

I. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 10, 2020

Case 3:16-cv-02412-CAB-MSB Document 154 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5