Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01923/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01923-4/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

16cv1923-CAB-JMA

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

COLUMBUS ALLEN, JR., CDCR # AE1543,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv1923-CAB-JMA

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 25]

On May 18, 2018, Plaintiff Columbus Allen, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s 

order dismissing his second amended complaint. [Doc. No. 25.] For the reasons set forth 

below, the motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his original complaint in this case on July 28, 2016, against more 

than a dozen correctional officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff’s suit involves 

his refusal to submit to random urinalysis testing while he was incarcerated at Centinela 

State Prison on July 28, 2015, and the disciplinary proceedings and appeals that followed. 

[Doc. No. 1.] 

Case 3:16-cv-01923-CAB-JMA Document 26 Filed 05/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16cv1923-CAB-JMA

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

At the time he filed his Complaint, Plaintiff did not prepay the $400 filing fee 

mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [Doc. No. 2.]

On November 3, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, but 

dismissed his Complaint failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 

1915A(b). [Doc. No. 3.] The Court further granted Plaintiff 45 days in which to file an 

Amended Complaint that addressed the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. 

Id.; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[A] 

district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was 

made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured.”) (citations 

omitted).

Plaintiff failed to amend, and instead filed a Motion for Reconsideration. [Doc. No. 

5.] On March 9, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion, but sua sponte granted him an 

additional 30 days to file the Amended Complaint required as a result of the Court’s 

November 3, 2016 Order. [Doc. No. 6.] Plaintiff again failed to amend, and requested 

additional time in which to do so. [Doc. No. 8.] The Court granted that request, and on 

June 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). [Doc. Nos. 9, 10.]

On October 10, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s FAC and again dismissed it 

sua sponte and in its entirety for failing to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be 

granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1). [Doc. No. 12.] 

While the Court denied further leave to amend as to Plaintiff’s Fourth, Eighth, and 

Fourteenth Amendment pleading deficiencies as futile, it granted him leave to amend 

with respect to “the First Amendment retaliation claims raised for the first time in his 

FAC against Defendants Montgomery, Rodriguez, Luccy, Ortega, Nava, Chavarria, and 

Paul.” [Id. at 19.]

Case 3:16-cv-01923-CAB-JMA Document 26 Filed 05/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16cv1923-CAB-JMA

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

Instead of timely complying with the Court’s October 10, 2017 Order, Plaintiff 

chose to file a Notice of Appeal. [Doc. No. 13]; but the Ninth Circuit dismissed it for lack 

of jurisdiction on November 14, 2017 [Doc. No. 16]. On November 27, 2017, Plaintiff 

again requested an extension of time in which to amend. [Doc. No. 18.] On December 5, 

2017, the Court once again granted Plaintiff’s request [Doc. No. 19], but explicitly 

cautioned that should Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) “fail to cure the 

pleading deficiencies ... identified in the Court’s October 10, 2017 Order,” his entire case 

would be dismissed “without further leave to amend.” [Id. at 6.]

On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed his SAC. [Doc. No. 21.] While he was granted 

leave to amend his First Amendment retaliation claims as to Defendants Montgomery, 

Rodriguez, Luccy, Ortega, Nava, Chavarria, and Paul only, see Doc. No. 12 at 19, and 

expressly warned not to “include any claims previously dismissed without leave to amend 

or add any new claims or Defendants,” see Doc. No. 19 at 5, Plaintiff’s SAC nevertheless 

continues to include all the Defendants named in his prior pleadings, attempts to raise 

new claims, and re-asserts previously dismissed Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment 

claims—despite the Court’s previous Order limiting the bases for amendment. [Id.; see 

also Doc. No. 21 at 2, 26-30.]

On April 30, 2018, this Court issued an order dismissing the second amended 

complaint without leave to amend for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§1915(e)(2) and §1915A(b) and for failing to comply with court orders regarding 

amendment. [Doc. No. 22.]

On May 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed the pending motion for reconsideration. [Doc. 

No. 25.]

DISCUSSION

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly authorize a motion 

for reconsideration, “(a) district court has the inherent power to reconsider and modify its 

Case 3:16-cv-01923-CAB-JMA Document 26 Filed 05/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16cv1923-CAB-JMA

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

interlocutory orders prior to the entry of judgment ...” Posthearing Procedures, Cal. 

Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial, Ch. 12-E, §12:158, quoting Smith v. 

Massachusetts, 543 US 462, 475 (2005). However, reconsideration is an “extraordinary 

remedy, to be used sparingly.” Absent highly unusual circumstances, a motion for 

reconsideration will not be granted “unless the district court is presented with newly 

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the 

controlling law.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 

2000)(internal quotes omitted).

Here, Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered evidence, nor has he shown 

clear error or an intervening change in the controlling law. Rather, Plaintiff argues that

he repled his previously-dismissed claims (where leave to amend was not granted) 

because he wanted to preserve them for appeal. [Doc. No. 25 at 2.] While this was 

unnecessary to preserve his appeal, failure to comply with this Court’s order was not the 

only basis for dismissing the SAC. Rather, the remaining claims in the SAC (where 

leave to amend had been granted), were dismissed for failure to state a claim. Given that 

this was Plaintiff’s second attempt to state such claims, leave to amend was denied as 

futile. There is nothing in the motion for reconsideration to change that result.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Dated: May 21, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-01923-CAB-JMA Document 26 Filed 05/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4