Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02457/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02457-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISON

RUDOLPH HERRERA MORALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN CHAPPELL,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-2457-NJV (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Dkt. No. 27

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. The court ordered service on plaintiff’s ADA claim but denied several other claims 

including plaintiff’s claim that prison officials blocked his access to the inmate grievance system. 

(Doc. 24.) Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of this claim. (Doc. 27.)

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for “Motions for Reconsideration”; 

such motions are created by local rules or practice. 

In the Northern District of California, Civil Local Rule 7-9 allows for the filing of motions 

for reconsideration only with respect to interlocutory orders made in a case prior to the entry of 

final judgment. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). No pre-judgment motion for reconsideration under Local 

Rule 7-9 may be brought without leave of court. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). The moving party must 

specifically show: (1) that at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law 

exists from that which was presented to the court before entry of the interlocutory order for which 

the reconsideration is sought, and that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying 

for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or (2) the 

emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or (3) a 

Case 3:15-cv-02457-WHO Document 28 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

manifest failure by the court to consider material facts which were presented to the court before 

such interlocutory order. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b). Unless otherwise ordered by the court, no 

response need be filed to a motion under the Local Rule. See Civil L.R. 7-9(c).

This claim was denied because there is no constitutional right to a prison administrative 

appeal or grievance system. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. 

Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any material 

difference in law or fact related to this claim. Plaintiff also includes with the motion for 

reconsideration copies of his inmate grievances. Plaintiff successfully appealed the claim in this 

action through all levels of the inmate grievance system and to third and final level of review. 

Docket No. 27 at 16-17. The prison official noted that plaintiff had successfully exhausted this 

claim. Id. at 17. Thus, plaintiff’s was not denied access to the inmate grievance system. 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 27) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2016

________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02457-WHO Document 28 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 2