Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00735/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00735-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT N. WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0735 LKK DAD P

vs.

CAL. DEP’T OF CORRS.

AND REHABILITATION,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 16, 2009, the court dismissed this case

without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On the same day,

the judgment was entered and the case was closed. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion

for reconsideration.

BACKGROUND 

On April 15, 2009, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s original

complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In his complaint plaintiff had alleged that he was placed on

C-status as punishment for two rules violations. He further alleged that he was released from 

C-status forty-two days after his scheduled release date and suffered more than he needed to

because he did not have access to a television, radio, or fan to keep him cool while held in CCase 2:09-cv-00735-LKK -DAD Document 24 Filed 03/01/10 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

2

status. Based on plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations, the court was unable to determine

whether plaintiff’s complaint was frivolous or failed to state a claim for relief. Accordingly, the

court dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. Subsequently, plaintiff

filed two separate amended complaints. 

On September 14, 2009, the assigned magistrate judge screened both of plaintiff’s

amended complaints and found that they failed to state any cognizable claims for relief. 

Specifically, the magistrate judge determined that plaintiff’s alleged temporary over-stay on Cstatus did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation because, at most, plaintiff had

experienced some of the routine discomfort inherent in the prison setting. See Whitley v. Albers,

475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). In addition, the magistrate judge determined that plaintiff’s alleged

temporary over-stay on C-status did not rise to the level of a Fourteenth Amendment violation

because prison classifications do not give rise to a federal liberty interest, and plaintiff’s delayed

release from C-status did not represent an “atypical and significant hardship.” See Sandin v.

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995); Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir.

1987) (citing Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976)). Based on these determination, the

magistrate judge recommended dismissing plaintiff’s action as frivolous.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

In his one-page motion for reconsideration, plaintiff reiterates that he was retained

on C-Status longer than he was supposed to be. Plaintiff argues that a jury should decide

whether a constitutional violation occurred as a result. 

DISCUSSION

A request for reconsideration is directed to the sound discretion of the court. See

Frito-Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981). A party

seeking reconsideration must brief the “new or different facts or circumstances” which were not

previously shown “or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j). This rule is

grounded on the principle that decisions on legal issues made in a case should be followed unless

Case 2:09-cv-00735-LKK -DAD Document 24 Filed 03/01/10 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

3

there is substantially different evidence or new controlling authority, or the party demonstrates

that the court’s prior decision was clearly erroneous and resulted in injustice. See Handi

Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Waggoner v.

Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985). A motion to reconsider is not a vehicle by which an

unsuccessful party can “rehash” arguments or present “contentions which might have been raised

prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F. Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal.

1991). See also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986); Keyes v. National R.R.

Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991).

In this case, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration merely rehashes allegations and

arguments previously presented in his complaint and amended complaints. Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration does not present different facts or circumstances that were not previously shown,

and plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that this court’s order dismissing this action was clearly

erroneous or resulted in injustice. The court will therefore deny plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s January 5, 2010 motion

for reconsideration (Doc. No. 23) is denied.

DATED: March 1, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00735-LKK -DAD Document 24 Filed 03/01/10 Page 3 of 3