Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00070/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00070-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GONZALO ARAMBULA

Plaintiff,

 v.

MILLNER, M.D., ET AL., 

 Defendant. ___________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-0070 CW (PR) 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

RECONSIDER

(Docket nos. 23, 24, 25)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the above-referenced pro se

civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding the

conditions of his incarceration. 

On July 11, 2006, because Plaintiff had "on 3 or more prior

occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought

an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was

dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the

prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury," the

Court ordered him to show cause why his actions should not be

dismissed without prejudice to bringing in a paid complaint. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g); see Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1120-21 (9th

Cir. 2005). 

On August 10, 2006, Plaintiff responded by filing a "Motion to

Return a [sic] Order to Show Cause" in which he failed to address

the propriety of the dismissal of his action pursuant to § 1915(g),

or make any showing as to why his actions should not be dismissed

pursuant to that section. Therefore, in an Order dated September

25, 2006, the above-referenced action was DISMISSED without

prejudice to bringing the claims herein in a future action in which

Case 4:06-cv-00070-CW Document 26 Filed 09/26/07 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff pays the full filing fee of $ 250.00.

Plaintiff has now filed a motion to reconsider (docket no. 23)

and an amended motion to reconsider (docket no. 24). Where the

Court's ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order, as here,

a motion for reconsideration may be based either on Rule 59(e)

(motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion for

relief from judgment) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Because Plaintiff's motion was not filed within ten days of entry

of judgment, as is required for a Rule 59(e) motion, it will be

treated as a Rule 60(b) motion.

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of

the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due

diligence could not have been discovered before the Court's

decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason

justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v.

ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). "Rule 60(b) []

provides a mechanism for parties to seek relief from a judgment

when 'it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have

prospective application,' or when there is any other reason

justifying relief from judgment." Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d

844, 853-54 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).

Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds

justifying relief are extraordinary. Mere dissatisfaction with the

Court's order, or belief that the Court is wrong in its decision,

are not grounds for relief under subparagraph (6) or any other

Case 4:06-cv-00070-CW Document 26 Filed 09/26/07 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

provision of Rule 60(b). "'[T]he major grounds that justify

reconsideration 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) (quoting

United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713, 715 (9th

Cir. 1970)).

The Court finds nothing in Plaintiff's allegations in either

his motion to reconsider or amended motion to reconsider that

merits reconsideration. For example, Plaintiff states that he is

filing "this Amended Motion as a 'proof' that his 'rights' are bee

[sic] abused and violated by defendants and 'there predecessor's

[sic]. . . ." (Am. Mot. to Recons. at 1.) In his motion to

reconsider, Plaintiff seems to be challenging the Court's § 1915(g)

dismissal by alleging that he meets the imminent danger exception

because he was denied an "insulin order" from April 28, 2006 to

July 21, 2006. (Mot. to Recons. at 2-3.) However, the plain

language of the imminent danger clause in § 1915(g) indicates that

"imminent danger" is to be assessed at the time of filing of the

complaint. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir.

2007) ("Andrews II"). The conditions that existed at some earlier

or later time are not relevant. See id. at 1053 n.5 (post-filing

transfer of prisoner out of the prison at which danger allegedly

existed may have made moot his request for injunctive relief

against the alleged danger, but it does not affect the § 1915(g)

analysis). Plaintiff's complaint filed on January 9, 2006 includes

allegations that Defendants ignored his requests to "reorder [his]

Case 4:06-cv-00070-CW Document 26 Filed 09/26/07 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

insulin order" in March and April of 2005. (Compl., Ex. 1 at 1.) 

Because the aforementioned conditions of a denial of insulin did

not exist at the time of filing of the complaint, the Court finds

that Plaintiff's allegations do not qualify under the imminent

danger exception. See Andrews II, 493 F.3d at 1053. 

Plaintiff's allegations present no grounds that warrant

reconsideration; therefore, the Court reaffirms its dismissal of

his action pursuant to § 1915(g). Accordingly, Plaintiff's request

to reconsider is DENIED. 

If Plaintiff is currently being denied insulin, then he may

file a new action alleging that he is in imminent danger of serious

physical injury at the time of filing. See id. at 1055 (It is

sufficient if the complaint "makes a plausible allegation that the

prisoner faced 'imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the

time of filing."). Furthermore, to avoid dismissal for failure to

exhaust available administrative remedies, Plaintiff must exhaust

his claims through California's prison grievance process prior to

filing his new action. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-

1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (action must be dismissed without prejudice

unless prisoner exhausted available administrative remedies before

he filed suit, even if prisoner fully exhausts while the suit is

pending).

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff's motion to reconsider and amended motion to

reconsider (docket nos. 23, 24) are DENIED. 

Case 4:06-cv-00070-CW Document 26 Filed 09/26/07 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.06\Arambula0070.denyRECON.frm 5

2. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending

motions, including his "Motion for Declaration of Indigency by

Plaintiff" (docket no. 25). Plaintiff has filed several motions in

his other actions after they were closed. Therefore, any future

motions submitted by Plaintiff in this case will not be received by

the Clerk of the Court and will be returned to Plaintiff.

This Order terminates Docket nos. 23, 24 and 25.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 9/26/07

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-00070-CW Document 26 Filed 09/26/07 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.06\Arambula0070.denyRECON.frm 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GONZALO ARAMBULA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MILLNER et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV06-00070 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on September 26, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Gonzalo Arambula T-61604

Kern Valley State Prison ;Delano II

FAC C-8-111 Low

P.O. Box 5103

Delano, CA 93216-5103

Dated: September 26, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:06-cv-00070-CW Document 26 Filed 09/26/07 Page 6 of 6