Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01674/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01674-3/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

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

SCOTT HERD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JAMES HARTLEY, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12-cv-01674-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT 

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e)

(ECF No. 24)

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff Scott Herd (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

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

June 6, 2012, and the matter was transferred to this Court on October 12, 2012. 

On October 29, 2013, the Magistrate Judge dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to 

state a claim and granted leave to amend. (ECF No. 13.) Following an extension of time, 

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 3, 2014. (ECF No. 17.) On April 3, 2014, the 

Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that the action be dismissed for failure 

to state a cognizable section 1983 claim. (ECF No. 18.) Following an extension of time, 

Plaintiff submitted objections to the Findings and Recommendations on May 22, 2014. (ECF 

No. 21.) On July 1, 2014, the undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full 

and dismissed this action for failure to state a claim under section 1983. (ECF No. 22.) The 

Clerk of the Court entered judgment on July 1, 2014. (ECF No. 23.) 

Case 1:12-cv-01674-DAD-BAM Document 27 Filed 10/29/14 Page 1 of 3
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

On July 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to alter or amend the judgment 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The motion was submitted for mailing on 

July 28, 2014. (ECF No. 24, p. 29.)

II. Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment

Applying the prison mailbox rule, Plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration 27 days

after entry of judgment. A motion for reconsideration, such as that filed by Plaintiff, is treated as 

a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) if it is filed 

within 28 days after the entry of judgment. United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 

397 (9th Cir.1992); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 

Relief pursuant to Rule 59(e) is appropriate when there are highly unusual circumstances, 

the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, the district court committed clear 

error, or a change in controlling law intervenes. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon 

v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). To avoid being frivolous, such a motion must 

provide a valid ground for reconsideration. See MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 

505 (9th Cir.1986).

Here, Plaintiff claims that the Court erred by ignoring or rejecting evidence presented for 

the first time in his objections to the Findings and Recommendations. The evidence referenced 

by Plaintiff consists of the following: (1) portions of the California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Operations Manual; (2) portions of Title 15 of the California Code 

of Regulations; and (3) a blank CDCR 1819 Notification of Disapproval-Mail/Packages/

Publications form. (ECF No. 21.) The Court overruled Plaintiff’s objections, which included 

these exhibits. Plaintiff now contends that this evidence demonstrates his rights were violated 

because he was never notified of the disapproval or disposition of his outgoing confidential legal 

mail. However, neither these exhibits nor Plaintiff’s generalized assertion demonstrate that the 

Court committed clear error in finding that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable First Amendment 

claim. (ECF No. 18, p. 4; ECF No. 22.) Any purported lack of notice does not rise to the level of 

a constitutional violation. 

Case 1:12-cv-01674-DAD-BAM Document 27 Filed 10/29/14 Page 2 of 3
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

Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that he has stated a claim by alleging (1) his First and 

Fourth Amendment rights were violated and (2) these violations were committed by the two 

named Defendant CDCR Correctional Officers acting under color of state law. (ECF No. 24, p. 

4.) A threadbare statement of the elements of 1983 action is not sufficient to state a claim. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). To survive dismissal, a 

complaint requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named 

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. Plaintiff’s conclusory statements do not 

suffice and do not demonstrate any grounds warranting reconsideration. 

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment is HEREBY 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01674-DAD-BAM Document 27 Filed 10/29/14 Page 3 of 3