Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01773/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01773-5/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11cv01773 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Document 21)

Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action 

on October 25, 2011.1

On January 18, 2013, the Court screened his complaint and found a cognizable First 

Amendment retaliation claim. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a first amended 

complaint or notify the Court of willingness to proceed on the cognizable claim. On February 6, 

2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 

The Court screened the FAC on May 20, 2013, and found that it states cognizable First 

Amendment retaliation claims and due process claims against Defendants Holland, Steadman, 

 

1 On December 5, 2011, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge.

Case 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 06/07/13 Page 1 of 4
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

Gutierrez, Noyce, Tyree, Gentry, Eubanks, Medrano and Holman. Plaintiff was ordered to either 

notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims or file an amended 

complaint. The Court also dismissed certain claims and Defendants without leave to amend.

On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Supplement his complaint with claims 

occurring after the initial filing of this action. The Court denied the motion on May 17, 2013.

On May 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s May 17, 

2013, order.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or 

proceeding 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). The moving party 

“must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control....” Id. In seeking 

reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to identify the motion or order in 

issue and when it was made, and 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 ... court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear 

error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. 

Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.2009), and “[a] party seeking 

reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the [c]ourt’s decision, and 

recapitulation ...” of that which was already considered by the court in rendering its decision. 

U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D.Cal.2001).

Case 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 06/07/13 Page 2 of 4
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

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick 

Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir.1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th 

Cir.1983). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to 

induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See e.g., Kern–Tulare Water Dist. v. City of 

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal.1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 828 F.2d 514 

(9th Cir.1987).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s May 17, 2013, order denying his Motion to 

Supplement his complaint with events occurring after those in the original complaint. The Court 

explained:

Plaintiff’s supplemental claims do not concern the same Defendants or events. 

Specifically, the supplemental claims involve an entirely new set of Defendants and 

relate to events occurring mainly in 2012, almost one year after the events at issue in his 

original complaint. Indeed, joining these two series of events and Defendants would 

essentially result in the combination of two separate actions.

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff takes issue with the Court’s statement that the 

events relate to an “entirely new set of Defendants.” He argues that Defendant Holland is a 

Defendant in the original complaint and the supplemental claims involve actions taken by her 

subsequent to the original events. He further contends that simply because she used different 

means of retaliation (gang validation vs. retaliatory transfer), he should not be barred from 

supplementing his pleadings.

Plaintiff’s argument is not compelling. While he is correct that Defendant Holland is a 

Defendant in both the original complaint and the proposed supplemental allegations, it does not 

change the ultimate conclusion. 

Rule 15(d) does not require the moving party to satisfy a transactional test, but there must 

still be a relationship between the claim in the original pleading and the claims sought to be 

Case 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 06/07/13 Page 3 of 4
4

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

added. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 474 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, “[w]hile leave to permit 

supplemental pleading is favored, it cannot be used to introduce a separate, distinct and new 

cause of action.” Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 

1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Here, Defendant Holland is the only Defendant involved in the events of both the original 

complaint and the supplemental allegations. This does not, however, make the separate and 

distinct causes of action related. As previously explained, the original complaint involves a 

retaliatory gang validation occurring from June 2010 through April 2011. The supplemental 

allegations involve an allegedly retaliatory transfer in March 2012. Although Plaintiff 

characterizes this as a continuation of Defendant Holland’s retaliatory actions, he admits that 

Defendant Holland recruited a “different set of officials” and used a different means of 

retaliation. In other words, although Defendant Holland may be a common Defendant, the fact 

remains that the supplemental claims involve eight new Defendants, a different time period and a 

different retaliatory event with different facts.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 06/07/13 Page 4 of 4