Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00020/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00020-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL AVINA,

NO. CIV. 08-020 LKK/CMK P

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

R. BAILEY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an

action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant

to Local Rule 72-302(c)(32). The magistrate screened the complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and determined that all but one

of its claims failed to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted. Plaintiff was given leave to amend the complaint, but did

not do so. Therefore, this court dismissed several of plaintiff’s

claims on August 20, 2008.

////

Case 2:08-cv-00020-LKK -CMK Document 26 Filed 10/09/08 Page 1 of 6
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

2

Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of

that order. Plaintiff states that he suffers from a mental

disability, and as a result failed to understand the court’s prior

orders. Now that plaintiff understands what the court asked, he

asks for reconsideration of the dismissal and leave to ammend. For

the reasons stated below, the court grants plaintiff’s order, and

requests the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se, who alleges

cruel and unusual punishment as well as discrimination on the basis

of race and disability. 

Plaintiff’s allegations center on the conduct of two

correctional officers, Baily and Moses. Plaintiff alleges that

these officers physically abused him on two occasions: during or

following a seizure, and then after plaintiff filed a staff

complaint about the first incident. Plaintiff also claims that both

officers verbally abused him in both instances. Plaintiff’s claims

for bias and discrimination are not clear. Plaintiff states that

Officer Bailey has physically and verbally abused “handicaps” on

multiple occasions, but does not specifically allege whether or how

he was discriminated against on the basis of race.

Plaintiff’s case was assigned to a magistrate, who screened

the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The magistrate

concluded that plaintiff properly alleged an Eighth Amendment claim

for excessive force, but that all of plaintiff’s other claims

Case 2:08-cv-00020-LKK -CMK Document 26 Filed 10/09/08 Page 2 of 6
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

3

failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The

magistrate therefore entered an order granting leave to amend, but

recommending dismissal of those claims if they were not properly

amended. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. The

magistrate then recommended that plaintiff’s defective claims be

dismissed, and plaintiff did not file an objection to that

recommendation. Therefore, this court entered an order dismissing

all of plaintiff’s claims except for his Eighth Amendment claim for

excessive force constituting cruel and unusual punishment.

Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the dismissal on the

ground that plaintiff has mental health problems and an educational

deficit that have made it difficult for plaintiff to proceed pro

se, and that as a result plaintiff did not understand the

magistrate’s findings until now. Pl.’s Mot. to Recons. ¶¶ 3-4.

II. STANDARD FOR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

“Under the ‘law of the case’ doctrine a court is generally

precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been decided

by the same court, or a higher court in the identical case.”

United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir.

1997)(citing Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 153, 154 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993)). Although motions to reconsider are

directed to the sound discretion of the court, see Kern-Tulare

Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.

Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 824

F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988),

Case 2:08-cv-00020-LKK -CMK Document 26 Filed 10/09/08 Page 3 of 6
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

4

considerations of judicial economy weigh heavily in the process.

Thus, Local Rule 78-230(k) requires that a party seeking

reconsideration of a district court’s order must brief the “new or

different facts or circumstances . . . which . . . were not shown

upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the

motion.” Generally speaking, before reconsideration may be granted

there must be a change in the controlling law or facts, the need

to correct a clear error, or the need to prevent manifest

injustice. See Alexander, 106 F.3d at 876. 

As with motions to alter or amend a judgment made pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a), motions to reconsider are not vehicles

permitting the unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously

presented. See Costello v. United States Government, 765 F. Supp.

1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991). Nor is a motion to reconsider

justified on the basis of new evidence available prior to the

court’s ruling. See Fay Corp. v. BAT Holdings One, Inc., 651 F.

Supp. 307, 309 (W.D. Wash. 1987), aff’d, 896 F.2d 1227 (9th Cir.

1990). Finally, “after thoughts” or “shifting of ground” do not

constitute an appropriate basis for reconsideration. See id.

These relatively restrictive standards “reflect[] district courts’

concern for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial

efficiency.” Costello, 765 F. Supp. at 1009.

III. ANALYSIS

Here, plaintiff has not alleged that the dismissal was

erroneous, that there has been any change in the applicable law,

or that any new evidence related to his claims has become

Case 2:08-cv-00020-LKK -CMK Document 26 Filed 10/09/08 Page 4 of 6
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

5

available. Therefore, the only potential ground for a grant of

reconsideration would be the prevention of “manifest injustice.”

Alexander, 106 F.3d at 876.

Plaintiff’s allegation that a mental disability prevented him

from understanding the courts’ orders rises to the manifest

injustice standard. Although the court attempted to provide

plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his complaint or to object

to the magistrate’s findings, plaintiff’s mental disability may

have prevented plaintiff from taking advantage of these

opportunities. See Schildkraut v. Bally's Casino New Orleans, 2004

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3256, *2-*3 (E.D. La. Mar. 1, 2004) (stating in

dicta that mental disability that prevents plaintiff from

litigating claim may constitute manifest injustice sufficient for

grant of reconsideration). Therefore, this court grants

plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, and vacates its earlier order.

IV. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

In addition to reconsidering its prior order, this court finds

that the exceptional circumstances of this case warrant requesting

the voluntary assistance of counsel for plaintiff, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Counsel will therefore be appointed.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Angelito Remo Sevilla is hereby APPOINTED to represent

plaintiff;

2. This court’s order of August 20, 2008 is VACATED;

////

Case 2:08-cv-00020-LKK -CMK Document 26 Filed 10/09/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

3. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint

within 90 days of this order;

4. Plaintiff’s counsel shall contact the Clerk’s Office to

make arrangements for copies of documents in the file;

5. This matter is scheduled for a status/scheduling

conference on January 29, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. before

Magistrate Judge Kellison at the United States District

Court in Redding, California. Both parties shall appear

by counsel at the status conference and shall be

prepared to discuss how this matter should proceed;

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of

this order upon Angelito Remo Sevilla, Drinker Biddle

and Reath LLP, 50 Fremont Str., 20th Floor, San

Francisco, CA 94105. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 9, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00020-LKK -CMK Document 26 Filed 10/09/08 Page 6 of 6