Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392-28/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. GAMBOA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 131).

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s prior order 

denying Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 131). For the following 

reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

I. BACKGROUND

On April 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the Court’s prior order denying 

Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 131). Plaintiff asks the Court to 

reconsider its October 26, 2022 order (ECF No. 76) because Plaintiff’s changed circumstances 

warrant reconsideration. (Id.) Plaintiff’s motion states that Plaintiff was “illegally” declared 

incompetent by prison psychiatrists who are falsely diagnosing Plaintiff as mentally ill. (See id. at 

pp. 1-7).1 Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 

1 Plaintiff’s lengthy motion also repeats several allegations that Defendants are harassing Plaintiff 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 142 Filed 05/19/23 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

2

in light of the fact that Plaintiff has been declared incompetent. (Id.) 

The Court directed Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

(ECF No. 133). On April 24, 2023, Defendants, along with non-parties, California State Prison 

Sacramento (CSP-SAC) and Kern Valley State Prison (KSVP), filed a response. (ECF No. 136).

According to Defendants’ response, 

Medical and mental health staff at KVSP determined that Plaintiff’s hunger strike 

and irrational behavior and reasoning warranted mental health intervention due to 

adverse impacts on his physical health. (Decl. of I. Singh, at ¶¶ 5-15.) Plaintiff 

refused to accept kosher meals for approximately 25 days, and was admitted to the 

Correctional Treatment Center (“CTC”) and hospital on multiple occasions, due to 

a hunger strike Plaintiff premised on beliefs that his food was being tampered 

with. (Id.) Multiple KVSP medical and mental health staff attempted to counsel 

Plaintiff on multiple occasions on the severe adverse health outcomes that could 

possible result from starvation. (Id., at ¶¶ 6, 8, 11-20.) Despite these efforts, and 

Plaintiff beliefs that physicians should provide life-saving care if necessary, 

Plaintiff refused to authorize such care despite this counseling, yet denied any 

suicidal ideations. (Id., at ¶ 8, 11-12, 16.) Plaintiff was appropriately placed in 

CCCMS, the lowest level of outpatient care within MHSDS:. (Decl. of I. Singh, at 

¶ 15.)

Medical staff at KVSP were concerned that Plaintiff’s hunger strike, and irrational 

decisions whether to eat his specialized diet, signaled that Plaintiff mental health 

intervention. (Decl. of I. Singh, at ¶ 15; Decl. of K. Franceschi, at ¶ 5.) Although 

Plaintiff began eating regular meals again after placement in CCCMS, Plaintiff 

resumed his hunger strike again on January 2, 2023. (Decl. of I. Singh, at ¶ 18.) A 

psychologist recommended a more thorough assessment to determine whether 

Plaintiff was experiencing delusional thinking impacting his physical wellbeing. 

(Id.) Approximately one week into his second hunger strike, Plaintiff objected to 

his placement into MHSDS. (Id., at ¶ 19.) Despite Plaintiff’s objections on January 

9, 2023, the IDTT determined that Plaintiff should be escalated to the EOP level of 

care based upon what the IDTT believed was necessary to address Plaintiff’s 

mental health needs, and for no improper purpose. (Id.)

On January 9, 2023, Dr. I. Singh, the Chief Medical Executive at KVSP, petitioned 

the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) to determine whether Plaintiff had 

the capacity to make decisions impacting his health as it related to food. (Id., at ¶ 

20.) This petition was withdrawn based upon further discussion with Plaintiff and 

other medical and mental health staff. (Id., at ¶ 21.) Thus, there has not been an 

OAH determination as to Plaintiff’s competency to make decisions concerning his 

medical care. (Id.) At no time was the decision to place Plaintiff in MHSDS, or 

determining the level of care he would receive, predicated on the input or orders of 

Defendants in this case, or from Wardens at KVSP, CSP-SAC, or California State 

in various ways. The Court has previously addressed Plaintiff’s allegations regarding his legal 

property and meal tampering, see ECF Nos. 118 & 137, and will not entertain issues not relevant 

to the instant motion. 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 142 Filed 05/19/23 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

3

Prison, Corcoran. (Id., at ¶ 22.) At no time did Plaintiff complain of suicidal 

thoughts or other mental impairments during multiple encounters with care 

providers. (Id., at ¶ 20.)

(ECF No. 136, pp. 5-6). 

II. DISCUSSION

Rule 60(b) provides relief 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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); see also Local Rule 230(j). 

“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 Nutraceuticals, 

Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). “A party seeking 

reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the [c]ourt’s decision, and 

recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original 

decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 

1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal quotations omitted). To succeed, a party must set forth facts 

or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior order. See KernTulare Water Dist. V. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in 

part and reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration contends that reconsideration is warranted because 

Plaintiff cannot represent himself if he is declared incompetent. Defendants’ response indicates 

that Plaintiff has not been declared incompetent. Moreover, Plaintiff does not present any newly 

discovered facts regarding the difficulty of the legal issues presented in this case or the likelihood 

of success on the merits, nor set forth any change in the controlling law as to the appointment of 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 142 Filed 05/19/23 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

4

pro bono counsel that would support reconsideration.

Additionally, Plaintiff has shown a remarked ability to litigate in this case. Plaintiff has 

filed eleven motions, including motions to compel and quash discovery, since December 2022.

(See ECF Nos. 89, 90, 93, 94, 103, 106, 108, 121, 125, 130). Those motions have included 

detailed factual and legal arguments. While many of those motions have been denied, Plaintiff 

has shown his ability to cogently articulate his position and advocate in favor of his case. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not established sufficient reason under Rule 60 to warrant 

reconsideration of the October 26, 2022 order. 

III. ORDER

Based on foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF 

No. 131) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 142 Filed 05/19/23 Page 4 of 4