Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01048/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01048-9/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADY K. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. PELAYO,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-01048-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 37)

Plaintiff Brady K. Armstrong, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 8, 2013. On June 5, 

2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff appears to be seeking reconsideration 

of the Court’s order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in full and 

denying his four motions for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on March 14, 2014. (Docs. 25, 

26.) For the reasons which follow, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief and his motion for 

reconsideration is denied.

First, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is based on his mere disagreement with the 

Court’s rulings, which is not a proper ground for reconsideration. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60; Local Rule 

230(j); Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 

2009).

Second, Plaintiff cannot prevail on the merits with respect to the underlying order he seeks 

from the Court. For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing. 

Case 1:13-cv-01048-DAD-SKO Document 39 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 2
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

Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); Mayfield v. 

United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). This requires Plaintiff to show that he is under 

threat of suffering an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and 

imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the 

defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury. 

Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (quotation marks and citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

This action arises out of the violation of Plaintiff’s federal rights in 2012 by D. Pelayo, a

correctional officer at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in 

Corcoran, California. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is directed at seeking assistance in 

obtaining his ten boxes of property from prison officials following his release on parole. Under no 

circumstance does the pendency of this action provide Plaintiff with standing to seek court orders 

directed at obtaining his property boxes following his release on parole; the Court’s jurisdiction is 

limited to the parties before it in this action and to Plaintiff’s claims for damages arising from 

2012 incidents involving the violation of Plaintiff’s rights by Defendant Pelayo. See e.g., Steel 

Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998) (“[The] triad of 

injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s case-or-controversy 

requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its 

existence.”) (citation omitted); American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto, 670 F.3d 

1046, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[F]ederal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or 

controversies.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on June 5, 2014, is HEREBY 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01048-DAD-SKO Document 39 Filed 06/30/14 Page 2 of 2