Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01248/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01248-2/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

CARLOS HENDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALDERON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01248-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION 

(Doc. 10)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN COMPLIANCE

WITH THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 8) 

Plaintiff Carlos Hendon (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

September 30, 2005. (Doc. 1.) On May 17, 2006, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Magistrate

Judge issued an order finding that plaintiff’s complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may

be granted under section 1983 for use of excessive force and directing plaintiff to file an amended

complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the order. (Doc. 8.) On June 13, 2006, plaintiff filed

a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 10.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on

grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse

party, . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ.

///

Case 1:05-cv-01248-LJO -GSA Document 11 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 4
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

P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, in any event “not

more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin

Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983)

(en banc). 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), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015, 108 S.Ct. 1752, 100 L.Ed.2d 214 (1988). The Ninth Circuit

has stated that “[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding

clauses.’” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986)

(quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981)). Accordingly, “the clause is

reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id. When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local

Rule 78-230(k) requires a party to show the “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.” 

In his motion, plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge erred by finding that plaintiff

failed to state a claim and argues that plaintiff’s exposure to pepper spray by defendants may support

a claim for relief under section 1983. Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Magistrate Judge’s order

appears to be overly broad. Although the Magistrate Judge noted that plaintiff was not sprayed

directly, the Magistrate Judge did not find that plaintiff could not proceed as a matter of law on an

excessive force claim based on the use of pepper spray against inmates other than plaintiff. Rather,

the Magistrate Judge found that the allegations set forth in plaintiff’s complaint fell short of stating

a claim and the Magistrate Judge provided plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended

complaint setting forth additional facts. Further, the Magistrate Judge noted that if plaintiff is

attempting to pursue any claims for relief other than excessive force and negligence, plaintiff may

clarify those claims in an amended complaint. For example, plaintiff touches upon the physical 

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01248-LJO -GSA Document 11 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 4
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

 Plaintiff’s allegations are too conclusory to give rise to a claim for relief under section 1983 for violation 1

of the Eighth Amendment arising from inadequate medical care. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.

2004). Further, plaintiff has not linked any named defendants to the failure to provide him with medical care. See

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). 

3

effects of the pepper spray and alleges that his medical needs have been ignored, but does not state

sufficient facts to support a claim. (Comp., ¶20.) 1

Exposure to pepper spray directed at other inmates other than a plaintiff may support a claim

for violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 903-06 (9th Cir.

2002) (officers entitled to qualified immunity on excessive force claim, but not on claim of

deliberate indifference to medical needs); see also Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436 (9th Cir. 1995).

However, an excessive force claim must be based on allegations which would support a claim that

the force in question was malicious and sadistic, not merely objectively unreasonable. Id. at 903.

Although the federal system is one of notice pleading, “a liberal interpretation of a civil rights

complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l

Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997)(quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d

266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). Plaintiff may proceed on an excessive force claim against the named

defendants if he alleges facts which would support the claim that defendants acted maliciously and

sadistically when they used the pepper spray and that plaintiff was affected during those incidents.

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and it contains many general allegations about

conditions and the behavior of correctional officers. Section 1983 requires that plaintiff allege a link

between actions or omissions of each named defendant and the violation of plaintiff’s rights. It

appears to the Court that plaintiff will have little difficulty correcting these deficiencies in an

amended complaint and will be permitted to proceed with this action. 

In conclusion, the Magistrate Judge did not preclude plaintiff from proceeding under section

1983 based on a claim that his rights were violated by exposure to pepper spray. Rather, the

Magistrate Judge directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint setting forth some additional facts,

presumably to support a claim that named defendants were using force which was sadistic and

malicious and that it was during these incidents of force that plaintiff was affected by the pepper

spray. The Court finds the Magistrate Judge did not err. Plaintiff has thirty days within which to

Case 1:05-cv-01248-LJO -GSA Document 11 Filed 06/27/06 Page 3 of 4
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

comply with the Magistrate Judge’s order of May 17, 2006. If plaintiff fails to comply with this

order, the Court will dismiss this action for failure to obey a court order. No further motions for

reconsideration and/or clarification on this issue will be considered. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed June 13, 2006, is DENIED, with

prejudice;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall comply

with the Magistrate Judge’s order of May 17, 2006;

3. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action shall be dismissed for failure

to obey a court order; and

4. No further motions for reconsideration and/or clarification on this issue will be

considered. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01248-LJO -GSA Document 11 Filed 06/27/06 Page 4 of 4