Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00544/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00544-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRANCE VICKERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN RICK HILL et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-0544 CKD P (TEMP)

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On October 14, 2015, then-Magistrate 

Judge Dale A. Drozd dismissed this action due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim for 

relief.1 On the same day, the court entered judgment and closed the case. Pending before the 

court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

“[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Kona Enterprises v. Estate 

of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Using a motion for reconsideration to reargue the 

points the court rejected in the original order is improper. See American Ironworks & Erectors v. 

North American Construction Corporation, 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001). A party cannot 

 

1

Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636. (Doc. No. 4)

Case 2:13-cv-00544-CKD Document 15 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 3
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

have relief merely because he or she is unhappy with the judgment. See Khan v. Fasano, 194 F. 

Supp. 2d 1134, 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2001). 

In this case, then-Magistrate Judge Drozd screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint 

and found that he failed to state a cognizable claim for relief because (1) a prisoner has no 

constitutional right to be free from a false prison disciplinary report in and of itself; (2) plaintiff 

had not alleged any factual basis for his retaliation claim as the court had previously told him was 

required; (3) plaintiff has no protected liberty or property interest in prison employment or the 

other privileges he alleges he lost as a result of defendants’ alleged conduct; and (4) to the extent 

plaintiff claimed that defendants unfairly denied him the right to appeal the issuance of the rules 

violation report against him when he wanted to do so, he has no constitutional right to a specific 

grievance procedure. (Doc. No. 9)

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is difficult to decipher. He appears to take issue 

with the court’s decision to dismiss this action without granting him further leave to amend. As 

an initial matter, this court had already granted plaintiff two opportunities to cure the defects of 

his complaint, and he failed to do so. See Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox Int’l, 300 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th 

Cir. 2002) (there is no need to prolong the litigation by permitting further amendment where the 

“basic flaw” in the underlying facts as alleged cannot be cured by amendment); Lipton v. 

Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Because any amendment would be 

futile, there was no need to prolong the litigation by permitting further amendment.”). Moreover, 

plaintiff has not explained in his motion for reconsideration how he would cure the defects of his 

complaint even if the court had granted him yet another opportunity to amend his complaint. 

Although plaintiff clearly disagrees with the court’s decision to dismiss his case for failure to 

state a claim, plaintiff has not demonstrated that the court committed clear error or that he is 

otherwise entitled to reconsideration of the court’s screening order. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:13-cv-00544-CKD Document 15 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 

No. 13) is denied.

Dated: November 10, 2015

9

vick0544.motr

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-00544-CKD Document 15 Filed 11/10/15 Page 3 of 3