Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01064/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01064-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS RIOS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10 CV 1064 MMA (PCL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. No. 86]

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Carlos Rios, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to United States

Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 59.] 

Judge Lewis issued a well-reasoned and thorough Report containing findings and conclusions,

upon which he based his recommendation that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

[Doc. No. 70.] The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, over Plaintiff’s

objection. [Doc. No. 83.] As a result, the only remaining claims in this action are Plaintiff’s

Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims against Defendants for injunctive

and declaratory relief, in their official capacities. Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the

Court’s Order adopting the Report and Recommendation and seeks reinstatement of his dismissed

claims. [Doc. No. 86.] Defendants oppose the motion. [Doc. No. 94.] 

- 1 - 10cv1064

Case 3:10-cv-01064-PCL Document 122 Filed 10/03/12 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

“[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.” Marlyn Natraceuticals, Inc.

v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009), citing 389 Orange St. Partners

v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). A motion for reconsideration “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.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Mindful of its duty to “construe pro se pleadings liberally,” Bernhardt v. Los Angeles

County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003), the Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion and finds

that Plaintiff fails to assert any cognizable basis to support reconsideration of the Court’s prior

ruling. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

DATED: October 3, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 2 - 10cv1064

Case 3:10-cv-01064-PCL Document 122 Filed 10/03/12 Page 2 of 2