Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01133/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01133-5/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

DAVID B. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

Civil No. 13cv1133-WQH

ORDER

vs.

SAN DIEGO CENTRAL JAIL;

CORPORAL SAUNDERS; DEPUTY

TORRES; SAN DIEGO COUNTY

SHERIFFS,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 39)

and the Motion for Mandatory Settlement Conference and Trial Date (ECF No. 43),

both filed by Plaintiff David B. Turner, Jr. 

BACKGROUND

On May 10, 2013, Plaintiff David B. Turner, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint

against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional claims for

actions which occurred on March 21, 2013, March 22, 2013 and April 7, 2013, while

Plaintiff was incarcerated at San Diego Central Jail. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges

claims for excessive force, deliberate indifference to his medical needs, and denial of

his right to religious services. Id. On June 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended

Complaint, which is the operative pleading. (ECF No. 7). On July 3, 2013, Defendant

San Diego Central Jail filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. (ECF No. 9). On July 25, 2013, Defendants Scott Torres, Mark Hays, and

- 1 - 13cv1133-WQH

Case 3:13-cv-01133-WQH-BGS Document 46 Filed 04/30/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
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

Michael Saunders filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. (ECF No. 12). 

On October 8, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,

recommending that Defendants’ motions to dismiss be granted. (ECF No. 24). The

Magistrate Judge recommended: “Without any facts or evidence to indicate Plaintiff

followed the required procedures and exhausted his claims prior to filing the action,

Defendants’ nonenumerated 12(b) motions be GRANTED because pursuant to the

[Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995], exhaustion is mandatory.” (ECF No. 24 at 7). 

The Magistrate Judge ordered that Plaintiff file any objections to the Report and

Recommendation by November 8, 2013. Id. The docket reveals that Plaintiff failed to

file any objections by the November 8, 2013 deadline. 

On December 5, 2013, this Court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its

entirety and ordered that Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 9 and 12) were

granted and this action was dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 28).

In a pleading filed on December 6, 2013, Plaintiff stated that he never received

a copy of the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 31). The Court subsequently

ordered that the Clerk of the Court mail Plaintiff a copy of the Report and

Recommendation and allowed the Plaintiff to file written objections to the Report and

Recommendation no later than January 15, 2014. (ECF No. 32). 

On December 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed Objections and lodgments in support of the

Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 33). On January 27, 2014,

Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and

Recommendation. (ECF No. 35).

On February 4, 2014, after considering Plaintiff’s Objections and conducting a

de novo review, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and

granted Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 9 and 12) without prejudice. (ECF

No. 37). The Court concluded that there were no facts or evidence in the record to

suggest that Plaintiff followed the required grievance procedures and exhausted his

- 2 - 13cv1133-WQH

Case 3:13-cv-01133-WQH-BGS Document 46 Filed 04/30/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
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

claims before he filed the action in this Court. Id. at 3. The Court dismissed the action

without prejudice and closed the case.

On February 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reinstate and Motion for

Reconsideration regarding the Court’s order on February 4, 2014 adopting the Report

and Recommendation in its entirety and granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss

without prejudice. (ECF No. 39). Plaintiff contends that, “pursuant to Jones v. Bock,

549 U.S. 199 (2007), [he was] not required to exhaust state judicial or administrative

remedies prior to commencing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff

contends that, “... only in cases with respect to prison conditions is exhaustion

mandatory under § 1983 ... [and] Plaintiff’s case is not about prison conditions.” Id. at

2.

On March 10, 2014, Defendant San Diego Central Jail filed an opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration. (ECF No. 41). Defendant contends that none

of the cases cited in Plaintiff’s moving papers applied to the issue before the Court. Id.

at 3. Defendant contends that, “while the Bock court held that inmates are not required

to specially plead or to demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints, they nevertheless

are required to prove they exhausted all available jail administrative remedies to

overcome the affirmative defense of a failure to exhaust in order avoid a summary

dismissal.” Id. at 3.

On March 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in

Support of Reinstatement and Reconsideration. (ECF No. 45). Plaintiff also filed a

Motion for Mandatory Settlement Conference and Trial Date, requesting the Court to

set a mandatary settlement conference and trial date, pursuant to Civil Rule 7.1(b)(e)

and Civil Rule 7.1(e)(1). (ECF No. 43).

DISCUSSION

Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests

of finality and conversation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters. Inc. v. Estate of

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000); see also United Natn’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum

- 3 - 13cv1133-WQH

Case 3:13-cv-01133-WQH-BGS Document 46 Filed 04/30/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
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

Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). “[A] motion for reconsideration

should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is

presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an

intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos

Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 389 Orange St.

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).

Plaintiff contends that he was not required to exhaust state judicial or

administrative remedies prior to commencing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

pursuant to Jones v. Bock. Prisoners, such as Plaintiff, are required to exhaust all

administrative remedies as “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison

conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative

remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

 Plaintiff contends in his Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of

Reconsideration, that, “moving facilities [from the San Diego Central Jail] prevented

him from seeking his administrative remedies,” violating his rights under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. (ECF No. 45 at 3). Plaintiff failed to raise this argument in either his Objections

to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 33) or his initial Motion for

Consideration (ECF No. 39). Plaintiff “may not use [this] motion for reconsideration

to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could have been

raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890. 

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration does not present

the Court with newly discovered evidence, does not establish that the Court committed

clear error, and does not establish an intervening change in the law. Marlyn

Natraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880. The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

///

///

///

- 4 - 13cv1133-WQH

Case 3:13-cv-01133-WQH-BGS Document 46 Filed 04/30/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
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

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Plaintiff

David B. Turner, Jr. (ECF No. 39) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Mandatory Settlement

Conference and Trial Date (ECF No. 43) is DENIED as moot. 

DATED: April 30, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 5 - 13cv1133-WQH

Case 3:13-cv-01133-WQH-BGS Document 46 Filed 04/30/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5