Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02971/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02971-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL M. SOARES,

CDCR # F-39579,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

[ECF No. 76]

Manuel M. Soares (“Plaintiff”), is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the California 

Health Care Facility (“CHCF”) in Stockton, California, and is proceeding pro se and in this 

civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Defendants are all correctional and mental health care officials employed at Richard 

J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) where Plaintiff was incarcerated in November 

2012. See ECF No. 1 at 1-2, 4-5.

I. Procedural History

On May 25, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Join/Amend in order to 

add additional parties and claims, and denied his Motion for Summary Judgment without 

prejudice as premature (ECF No. 61). Instead of amending, however, Plaintiff filed a 

Case 3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB Document 79 Filed 07/25/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB

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

Motion to withdraw his previously filed Motion to Join/Amend (ECF No. 67). The Court 

denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw on June 16, 2016 as moot, but also construed it as 

Plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to stand on his previous pleadings. (ECF No. 68). 

Plaintiff has since filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s May 25, 2016 

Order—at least to the extent it denied his Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 76). 

Essentially, Plaintiff asks the Court to again rule on the Motion for Summary Judgment it 

has already denied as moot, arguing that it is no longer premature because the period for 

fact discovery in his case has since closed.1

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

A. Standard of Review

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for 

reconsideration. However, a motion requesting reconsideration of a matter previously 

decided may be construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 

60(b). See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead 

Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994). A Rule 59(e) motion must 

be filed “no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). 

Because Plaintiff’s current Motion was filed after the 28 days permitted by FED. R. CIV. P.

59(e), the Court will consider his request to arise under FED. R. CIV. P. 60. Under Rule 60, 

a motion for “relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding” may be filed within a 

“reasonable time,” but usually must be filed “no more than a year after the entry of the 

judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1). 

/ / /

 

1

 This is true; however, the period for expert discovery will not be complete until August 

15, 2016, and the deadline to bring pretrial motions in this case will not expire until 

September 12, 2016. (ECF No. 43 at 3.) Moreover, discovery disputes remain outstanding 

in this case as Plaintiff himself has since filed a Motion to Quash Subpeona (ECF No. 70).

On July 14, 2016, Defendants to filed a response to Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 73), but 

Judge Brooks has yet to consider Plaintiff’s Motion.

Case 3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB Document 79 Filed 07/25/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB

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

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).

“Although the application of Rule 60(b) is committed to the discretion of the district 

courts . . ., as a general matter, Rule 60(b) is remedial in nature and must be liberally 

applied.” TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 695-96 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). Nevertheless, Rule 60(b) provides for 

extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a showing of “exceptional 

circumstances.” Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994).

B. Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff does not seek reconsideration based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise or 

neglect. He does not present any newly discovered evidence, point to fraud, argue that the 

Court’s May 25, 2016 Order is void, that any judgment has been satisfied, or point to any 

“other reason” that might justify reconsideration. See FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1)-(6). 

As noted above, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment without 

prejudice as premature because it was premature given his request for leave to amend, and 

the fact that the period for discovery had yet to close. See ECF No. 61 at 10. In fact, the 

period for discovery in this case has still yet to close—Plaintiff’s recently filed Motion to 

Quash a subpoena is still pending (ECF No. 70), and the motion cut-off date set for the 

filing of all pre-trial motions is almost two months away. (ECF No. 43 at 3.)

The Court notes that the denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was 

without prejudice. Nothing prevents him from seeking a future summary judgment, and 

filing a motion that incorporates all relevant materials in the record obtained after the 

period set for the completion of all discovery as contemplated by Rule 56 has elapsed. See, 

e.g., Moore v. Hubbard, No. 06cv2187, 2009 WL 688897, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2009) 

Case 3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB Document 79 Filed 07/25/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB

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

(recommending that pre-discovery motion for summary judgment be denied as premature); 

see also Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck 

Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that when “a summary judgment 

motion is filed so early in the litigation, before a party has had any realistic opportunity to 

pursue discovery relating to its theory of the case,” the district court should grant requests 

by non-movants to take discovery prior to considering motion for summary judgment).

However, because Plaintiff has provided no basis for the Court to vacate or set aside 

its March 28, 2016 Order, relief under Rule 60 is not warranted. See School Dist. No. 1J, 5 

F.3d at 1442; Engleson, 972 F.2d at 1044. A motion for reconsideration cannot be granted 

simply because Plaintiff is unhappy with the judgment, frustrated by the Court’s 

application of the facts to binding precedent or because he disagrees with its ultimate 

decision. See 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller Federal Practice & Procedure 2d 

§ 2858 (Supp. 2015) (citing Edwards v. Velvac, Inc., 19 F.R.D. 504, 507 (D. Wis. 1956)). 

III. Conclusion and Order

For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF 

No. 76).

Date: July 25, 2016 

 Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge

 United States District Court

Case 3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB Document 79 Filed 07/25/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4