Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01816/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01816-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\H\10cv1816-Reconsideration.wpd -1- 10cv1816 H (PCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RIGOBERTO ARZATE MIRANDA,

BOP #46404-359,

Civil No. 10-1816 H (PCL)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

AS MOOT

[Doc. No. 25]

vs.

JERALD LEE BRAININ; MARC XAVIER

CARLOS; MARK A. CHAMBERS;

STEPHEN PETERSON

Defendants.

I. Procedural History

On August 30, 2010, Plaintiff, Rigoberto Arzate Miranda, a prisoner proceeding pro se,

filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleged his appellate counsel

violated his rights to due process and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by

“misrepresent[ing]” him during an appeal of his federal criminal case, United States v. ArzateMiranda, S.D. Cal. Criminal Case No. 07-cr-00556-DMS-1. See Compl. at 2-3. Plaintiff sought

injunctive relief as well as nominal, compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 7. 

Plaintiff did not prepay the $350 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead

he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc.

No. 2], as well as a Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 3].

Case 3:10-cv-01816-H-PCL Document 30 Filed 03/10/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\H\10cv1816-Reconsideration.wpd -2- 10cv1816 H (PCL)

On October 1, 2010, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, denied

Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel and sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for

failing to state a claim. See Oct. 1, 2010 Order at 7-8. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an

Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Id.

at 8. 

On February 4, 2011, after receiving two extensions of time, Plaintiff submitted a First

Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 22], which, while received late, was nevertheless accepted for

filing pursuant to Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-72 (1988). See Douglas v. Noelle, 567

F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that “Houston mailbox rule applies to § 1983 suits filed

by pro se prisoners.”). On February 8, 2011, the Court directed the Clerk to file Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint “nunc pro tunc to the date received.” See “Notice of Document

Discrepancies [Doc. No. 21]. 

On February 24, 2011, however, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

for again failing to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). See Feb. 24, 2011 Order [Doc. No. 23]. Because the Court found

further amendment futile, and that an appeal would be frivolous, it certified that an IFP appeal

would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), and the Clerk entered

judgment accordingly. See Feb. 25, 2011 Order and Clerk’s Judgment [Doc. Nos. 23-24].

On February 25, 2011, the following day, and very likely before Plaintiff, who is

currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Inez, Kentucky, had even received this

Court’s February 24, 2011 final order dismissing his First Amended Complaint for failing to

state a claim, Plaintiff submitted a document entitled “Memorandum of Point[s] and Authorities

in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and Notice of Appeal” which the Court

directed the Clerk to file both as a Motion for Reconsideration and as a Notice of Appeal [Doc.

Nos. 25, 26].

II. Motion for Reconsideration 

Under certain circumstances, district courts have discretion to reconsider a decision, and

if appropriate, vacate a judgment. See Barber v. Hawai’i, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994).

Case 3:10-cv-01816-H-PCL Document 30 Filed 03/10/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\H\10cv1816-Reconsideration.wpd -3- 10cv1816 H (PCL)

 In his Motion, signed on February 22, 2011, Plaintiff asks the Court “for reconsideration

of the Order entered on 02/08/11 dismissing [his] First Amended Complaint.” See Pl.’s Mot. &

Notice of Appeal [Doc. No. 25]. While it is not entirely clear, it seems Plaintiff believes his First

Amended Complaint was dismissed on February 4, 2011. He argues that because he delivered

his pleading to prison authorities on January 18, 2011, it should have been deemed timely “filed”

as of that date pursuant to Houston’s “mailbox” rule. Id.

Plaintiff is correct insofar as Houston holds that a pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal is

deemed filed on the date he “delivered the notice to prison authorities for forwarding to the

[d]istrict [c]ourt.” Houston, 487 U.S. at 270. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has recently extended

Houston’s “mailbox rule” specifically to § 1983 complaints filed by pro se prisoners. Noelle,

567 F.3d at 1107. 

III. Conclusion & Order

However, because the Court accepted Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for filing and

did not, as Plaintiff seems to believe, dismiss it as untimely, his Motion for Reconsideration

[Doc. No. 25] is DENIED as moot. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint still fails

to state a claim and it remains dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b),

without leave to amend, for the reasons set forth in detail in the Court’s February 24, 2011 Order

[Doc. No. 23]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2011

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:10-cv-01816-H-PCL Document 30 Filed 03/10/11 Page 3 of 3