Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01768/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01768-5/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

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

OLIVER WILLIAMS, 2:07-cv-1768-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff,

vs. ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this civil rights action under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order filed December

11, 2007, following which judgment was entered. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

Rule 60(b) allows the court to grant relief from an order of final judgment on the

basis of, inter alia, mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. Plaintiff’s complaint

was dismissed because it failed to state a federal claim. In essence, his complaint alleges that

Dr. Hall performed a surgery that ended up being unnecessary, which is an insufficient allegation

to state an Eighth Amendment claim. Plaintiff was not given leave to file an amended complaint

because the deficiencies in his complaint were not found to be curable.

Case 2:07-cv-01768-GEB-CMK Document 16 Filed 03/31/08 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

2

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration suggests he was not aware of the court’s

intent to dismiss this case. However, plaintiff received the findings and recommendations which

recommended dismissal of this case. In fact, plaintiff requested and was granted additional time

to file objections to the findings and recommendations. He failed to file objections.

Plaintiff’s motion states he should have been given the opportunity to amend his

complaint. However, plaintiff does not provide the court with any indication that he would be

able to state a claim in an amended complaint. The allegations in plaintiff’s original complaint

could not rise to a level of deliberate indifference or complete denial of medical attention as

required to find a violation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. At best, plaintiff alleges

medical negligence in performing an unnecessary surgery.

Plaintiff also states his First Amendment rights have been impeded by the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation failure to allow plaintiff the opportunity

to conduct research. If plaintiff’s ability to access the court is being impeded, plaintiff may wish

to file another civil action to address that matter. However, a motion for reconsideration of an

order of final judgment is not the proper way to address this claim.

Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied the order of final

judgment is affirmed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion for reconsideration (Doc. 15)is s denied; and

2. The order of final judgment is affirmed.

Dated: March 28, 2008

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-01768-GEB-CMK Document 16 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 2