Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00108/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00108-37/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD J. MULLINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. WENCIKER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00108-LJO-DLB PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 124)

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION FOR

TRANSCRIPTS

(Doc. 128)

Plaintiff Edward J. Mullins (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court

is (1) Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed February 16, 2010, and (2) a motion for

ordering transcripts at government expense, filed March 15, 2010.

I. Motion For Reconsideration

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s February 4, 2010 order,

which denied Plaintiff’s request to file an amended pleading. Motions to reconsider are

committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir.

1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). A party

seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the

court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.

1

Case 1:07-cv-00108-LJO -DLB Document 131 Filed 05/07/10 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

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). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to

show the “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.” The Court

reviews a motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge’s ruling under the “clearly erroneous or

contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). As such

the Court may only set aside those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s order that are either clearly

erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

Plaintiff contends that the record supports a finding of a Fourteenth Amendment

violation, and that Plaintiff should have been allowed to file an amended pleading.

 “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so

requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2006)

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the

amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue

delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. A review of Plaintiff’s proposed amended pleadings

indicates that Plaintiff’s amendment would be futile. Plaintiff contends that Defendant

Wencicker “disposed of and destroyed all of Plaintiff’s property in insubordination to a decision

and order issued on May 1, 2006 of the Wardens/Director’s level.” (Doc. 124, Reconsideration

Mot. 2.) This indicates that the property deprivation by Defendant Wencicker was unauthorized. 

“An unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a

violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.” Hudson v.

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). California has a post-deprivation remedy available for

property deprivations. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).

Plaintiff also contends that he was denied access to the courts, in this case, to the inmate

grievance process. (Reconsideration Mot. 2-3.) Plaintiff contends that by destroying Plaintiff’s

property, Defendant Wencicker deprived Plaintiff of his right to appeal Defendant Wencicker’s

lower level decision. (Reconsideration Mot. 3.) This argument is incorrect. Plaintiff was denied

2

Case 1:07-cv-00108-LJO -DLB Document 131 Filed 05/07/10 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

his property by Defendant Wencicker, not his access to the inmate grievance system. Plaintiff’s 1

amended pleadings would be futile. Accordingly, the Court does not find that the Magistrate

Judge’s order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is

DENIED.

II. Motion For Transcripts

On March 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal regarding the Magistrate Judge’s

denial of Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint. On March 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion

requesting that the Court order Defendants to provide a transcript to the Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit for adjudication of his appeal. Because the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate

regarding Plaintiff’s appeal on May 6, 2010, dismissing Plaintiff’s appeal, Plaintiff’s motion for

transcripts is DISREGARDED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Furthermore, the existence of an administrative grievance process does not create a substantive right and

1

cannot support a claim for relief for violation of a constitutional right. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th

Cir. 2003).

3

Case 1:07-cv-00108-LJO -DLB Document 131 Filed 05/07/10 Page 3 of 3