Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02678/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02678-6/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

ANTHONY RAUL BARRON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-2678 JAM-AC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Anthony Raul 

Barron’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #31) of 

the Court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

(“SAC”), in part; granting leave to amend, in part; and adopting 

the findings and recommendations, in part (Doc. #29).1

 

Defendants did not file an opposition. For the reasons set forth 

below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

///

///

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). No hearing was 

scheduled.

Case 2:11-cv-02678-JAM-AC Document 37 Filed 12/19/13 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

2

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed 

this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On September 24, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings 

and Recommendations (Doc. #17). Plaintiff filed objections to 

the Findings and Recommendations (Doc. #26). On March 12, 2013, 

the Court upon de novo review dismissed Plaintiff’s SAC, in 

part; granting leave to amend, in part; and adopting the 

findings and recommendations, in part (Doc. #29). 

Plaintiff’s SAC alleges that he was confined on Contraband 

Surveillance Watch (“CSW”) by Defendant Alcaraz on the basis of 

his race and because Plaintiff declined to give Defendant 

Alcaraz information. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants 

Whitfield and Fowler falsified source item reports in 

retaliation for Plaintiff’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment 

right to remain silent, and that those reports were used to 

validate him as a gang member. Plaintiff further alleges that 

his confinement while on CSW violated the Eighth Amendment, and 

that the procedures used to validate Plaintiff as a gang member 

and resulting Segregated Housing Unit placement violated due 

process. 

Pursuant to the Court’s March 12, 2013, Order (“Underlying 

Order”), Plaintiff could proceed with the retaliation claim 

against Defendant Whitfield and the discrimination claim against 

Defendant Alcaraz (Doc. #29). Plaintiff was given leave to 

amend his Eighth Amendment claim and Plaintiff’s remaining 

Case 2:11-cv-02678-JAM-AC Document 37 Filed 12/19/13 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

3

claims were dismissed with prejudice, including Plaintiff’s 

retaliation claim against Defendant Alcaraz. Id. Plaintiff 

filed his Third Amended Complaint on April 22, 2013 (Doc. #32).

II. OPINION

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (“Rule 60(b)”) governs 

the reconsideration of final orders of the district court. Rule 

60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final 

order or judgment on grounds of “(1) mistake, inadvertence, 

surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence 

. . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is 

void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . or (6) any other 

reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

In addition, Local Rule 230(j) (“Rule 230(j)”) governs 

motions for reconsideration. Rule 230(j) requires an affidavit 

or brief setting forth, in part, “new or different facts or 

circumstances . . . claimed to exist which did not exist or were 

not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist 

for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not 

shown at the time of the prior motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3)–(4). To 

succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly 

convincing nature to induce the Court to reverse its prior 

decision. See, e.g., 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, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 

1987). “[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration 

Case 2:11-cv-02678-JAM-AC Document 37 Filed 12/19/13 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

4

involve an intervening change of controlling law, the 

availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear 

error or prevent manifest injustice.” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe 

of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(citation omitted).

B. Discussion

1. Retaliation Claim against Alcaraz

In the Findings and Recommendations, the Magistrate Judge 

found that Plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to state a 

retaliation claim against Defendant Alcaraz. Findings and 

Recommendations, Doc. #17, at 3. However, in the Underlying 

Order, the Court stated, “Plaintiff objects that he did not 

intend to allege a claim of retaliation against Defendant 

Alcaraz. Objection at 2.” Underlying Order, Doc. #29, at 5. 

The Court accordingly found that Plaintiff had not stated a 

retaliation claim against Defendant Alcaraz. Id. at 6. In his 

motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that this was a 

mistake because he was not referring to his retaliation claim; 

his objection referred to the Magistrate Judge’s factual finding 

that Defendant Alcaraz began the gang validation process. Mot. 

at 2. In the objection at issue, Plaintiff states, “Plaintiff 

did not allege that Defendant Alcaraz began the gang validation 

process (see Doc. 12, at p.3) Plaintiff alleged that Alcaraz 

targeted him due to his racial classification, attempted to 

coerce information and subjected him to cruel and unusual 

punishment in retaliation for not providing any information.” 

Objections, Doc. #26, at 2 (emphasis added). Therefore, read in 

its entirety, Plaintiff was correcting a factual contention but 

Case 2:11-cv-02678-JAM-AC Document 37 Filed 12/19/13 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

5

continued to allege a retaliation claim against Defendant 

Alcaraz. In addition, the factual contention was in reference to 

the discrimination not the retaliation claim. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendant Alcaraz should 

not have been dismissed. 

2. All Other Claims

Plaintiff also seeks reconsideration of the claims that were

dismissed with prejudice in the Underlying Order. However, in 

the Underlying Order, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s allegations 

and found they did not state cognizable claims. Plaintiff makes 

the same arguments he has previously raised and has provided no 

evidence or circumstances that would satisfy the requirements of 

Rule 60(b). A motion to reconsider is not a vehicle to permit a

party to reargue points previously presented, or to present 

contentions that might have been raised prior to the challenged 

order. Accordingly, the Court finds no grounds that warrant 

reconsideration of Plaintiff’s other claims previously dismissed. 

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration in part and DENIES in 

part. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendant Alcaraz is 

reinstated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2013

Case 2:11-cv-02678-JAM-AC Document 37 Filed 12/19/13 Page 5 of 5