Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-01516/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-01516-4/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

 The court is puzzled by Defendant’s argument in the Motion that he assumed the “Due

Process claim failed to survive screening” in the May 14, 2004 order. (Motion at p.3:25). If this were

the case, the court queries why Defendant would move for summary judgment on the due process

claim when he assumed it had been dismissed.

- 1 - 03cv1516

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOYD H. NELSON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 03cv1516 JM(RBB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION;

REQUESTING RESPONSE FROM

PLAINTIFF ON DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO CONTINUE;

DENYING MOTION FOR INMATE

CORRESPONDENCE AS MOOT

vs.

R. STANIFER,

Defendant.

This order address three receipt filings of the parties: Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration;

Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial Date; and Plaintiff’s Motion for Inmate Witness

Correspondence. Each filing is addressed in turn.

Motion for Reconsideration

Defendant moves for reconsideration (“Motion”) of this court’s January 22, 2007 Order

Denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Order”). More specifically, Defendant

requests clarification on whether Plaintiff’s due process claim remains at issue because “Defendant

did not believe the Due Process claim was viable given the Court’s screening Order of May 14, 2004.”

(Motion at p.3:11-12). 

In his Rule 56 motion, Defendant sought summary judgment on grounds that (1) Plaintiff could

not prevail on his due process claim;1

 (2) Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies;

Case 3:03-cv-01516-JLS-RBB Document 86 Filed 03/06/07 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

- 2 - 03cv1516

(3) Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence in support of the retaliation claim; and (4) Defendant was

entitled to qualified immunity. (Motion for Reconsideration at p.2:6-12; Order at p.5:5-8). The Order

denied summary judgment on all raised grounds, finding triable issues of fact with respect to these

issues. With respect to merits of the due process claim, the Order noted that “Plaintiff has a due

process right to submit documentary evidence” and that a “disputed issue of fact prevent[ed] entry of

summary judgment in favor of Defendant.” (Order at p.8:7-8). 

Reconsideration is generally appropriate “if the district court (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if

there is an intervening change in controlling law. . . . There may also be other, highly unusual

circumstances warranting reconsideration." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v.

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Here, Defendant fails to satisfy

any ground for reconsideration. The Order sufficiently identifies that Plaintiff is proceeding with two

separate, but related, claims. The court notes that Plaintiff’s due process and retaliation claims are

intimately connected in that both claims place on Plaintiff the burden to show, among other things,

that Defendant Stanifer denied him the opportunity to submit material evidence in his defense. In that

sense, the due process and retaliation claims arise from the same core set of facts. 

In sum, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

Motion to Delay Trial Date Until Plaintiff is Released from Custody

Defendant moves ex parte to continue the trial until after Plaintiff is released from Pelican Bay

State Prison on or about October 6, 2007. Defendant identifies that transporting Plaintiff from

Crescent City, California to San Diego will cause the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation logistical problems and additional expenses. Defendant also articulates that Plaintiff

may prefer a continuance to permit greater access to investigators and potential witnesses.

The court declines to rule on the ex parte application without Plaintiff being afforded an

opportunity to respond to the application. The court requests a response from Plaintiff on whether he

desires to continue the trial until after he is released from custody on or about October 6, 2007. The

Court requests a written response from Plaintiff no later than March 16, 2007.

/ / / 

Case 3:03-cv-01516-JLS-RBB Document 86 Filed 03/06/07 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

- 3 - 03cv1516

Request to Communicate

Plaintiff moves for leave to correspond with certain inmate witnesses. On or about March 5,

2007 Defendant filed a response to this motion indicating that the parties have largely resolved this

issue. Defendant represents that it will facilitate correspondence with certain identified inmates.

Accordingly, the court denies this motion without prejudice as moot, as it appears that Plaintiff has

obtained the requested relief.

In sum, the motion for reconsideration is denied, a ruling on the motion to delay the trial is

deferred until such time as Plaintiff files a response, and the motion to communicate with inmate

witnesses is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 6, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

Case 3:03-cv-01516-JLS-RBB Document 86 Filed 03/06/07 Page 3 of 3