Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986-6/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

VALENTINE E. UNDERWOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00986-GSA PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE DENIAL

OF HIS REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT, WITH

PREJUDICE

(Doc. 21)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

SEEKING RECONSIDERATION BY A

DISTRICT JUDGE

(Doc. 23)

Plaintiff Valentine E. Underwood, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 17, 2008. On April 10, 2009, Plaintiff filed a

motion seeking reconsideration of the Court’s order denying his motion to file a supplemental

complaint. On June 19, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration by a United States

District Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302. 

I. Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Motion to Supplement

Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies

relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice

and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d

737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 28 Filed 09/25/09 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

 Plaintiff was placed in Ad-Seg on August 28, 2008, in light of referral for possible validation as a Black 1

Guerilla Family gang member. (Doc. 21, court record p. 18.) On September 5, 2008, a validation package was

submitted for review and approval. (Id., p. 21.) These events must be exhausted, and Plaintiff submitted an appeal

that received a response at the first level of review on September 16, 2008. (Id., pp. 11-13.) It is unclear whether

Plaintiff successfully exhausted the appeal, but regardless, the events and the appeal of the event clearly occurred

after this action was filed on July 17, 2008.

2

demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 78-230(k) requires Plaintiff

to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or

were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 

“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,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or

present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the

litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.

2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is without merit. Plaintiff seeks to add a retaliation

claim arising from his placement in Ad-Seg and the SHU on August 28, 2008, at the California

Correctional Institution. Plaintiff may not add new claims that arose after this action was filed

because such claims could not have been exhausted prior to filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002); Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 982

(11th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff ’s argument that exhaustion occurred prior to filing his original complaint

is one of impossibility. If Plaintiff’s alleged retaliatory placement in Ad-Seg and the SHU occurred

on August 28, 2008, Plaintiff was required to exhaust that claim and could not have done so prior

to the filing of the original complaint because the event in question had not yet occurred.1

Further, as set forth in the Court’sscreening order, Plaintiff may not pursue any claims in this

action against staff at CCI. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). All claims arising from events at CCI, including

Plaintiff ’s proposed new claims, must be raised in a new action. Id. 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied, with prejudice.

///

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 28 Filed 09/25/09 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

II. Motion for Reconsideration by District Judge

Plaintiff’s fails to specify any order of which he is seeking reconsideration, and instead is a

recitation of Plaintiff’s filings and an identification of which have been resolved and which are still

pending. Plaintiff requests that a district judge assure he receives constitutional protections by the

Court. 

Plaintiff consented to United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on August 11, 2008, and

this action is assigned to the undersigned pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the

Eastern District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff may not seek reconsideration of the Court’s orders

by a district judge, and his motion is denied. Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules. 

III. Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of his request to file a

supplemental complaint, filed April 10, 2009, is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration by a district judge, filed June 19, 2009, is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 25, 2009 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 28 Filed 09/25/09 Page 3 of 3