Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05953/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05953-30/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD GLASS,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05953 AWI DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR

RECONSIDERATION

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND GRANTING IN

PART AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

(Docs. 94, 154, 156, 171, & 172)

Plaintiff Donald Glass, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On August 19, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations that

recommended Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. 

On September 24, 2009, the court adopted the Findings and Recommendations. On September 25,

2009, Plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. 156.)

Plaintiff has now filed motions for reconsideration of the court’s order adopting the Findings

and Recommendations on the ground that the court did not consider Plaintiff’s objections.

1

Case 1:04-cv-05953-LJO-EPG Document 174 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 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

A. Requests for Reconsideration

The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d

1185, 1198 (9 Cir.1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9 Cir.1992). th th

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 (9 Cir. 1983) th

(en banc). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the court may relieve a party from

a final judgment or order (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6)

“extraordinary circumstances” which would justify relief. Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 60(b)

A review of the file reveals that Plaintiff’s objections were timely. Plaintiff’s objections

were apparently submitted to prison officials for mailing on September 21, 2009. Including the

three days given for service by mailing, Plaintiff’s September 25, 2009 objections were timely and

the court should have considered these objections. See Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 6. Thus, Plaintiff’s motions

for the court to reconsider its September 24, 2009 order are granted, and the court will review the

Findings and Recommendations in light of the objections.

B. Order Concerning Findings and Recommendations and Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the objections, the court

finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

In the objections, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in granting summary

judgment on his access to court’s claim. Contrary to Plaintiff’s contentions, the Magistrate Judge

did not find that the Ninth Circuit’s May 15, 2002 order was never received at the prison. The

Magistrate Judge found this fact was disputed. However, the Magistrate Judge concluded that

Plaintiff had failed to meet all of the elements of an access to court’s claim because he never

requested the Ninth Circuit reconsider its dismissal on the ground Plaintiff had not timely received

his legal mail. As Plaintiff provides no evidence that he did request reconsideration and attempt to

comply with the Ninth Circuit’s order upon finally receiving it, the recommendation for summary

2

Case 1:04-cv-05953-LJO-EPG Document 174 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 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

judgment on the access to court’s claim is appropriate.

Finally, in the objections, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge impermissibly found

in a footnote that the complaint did not contain a state law tort claim for sexual assault. The

summary judgment motion did not ask the court to grant summary judgment on any sexual assault

tort cause of action, and the Findings and Recommendations do not recommend granting summary

judgment on such a cause of action. Thus, objections to the Findings and Recommendations is not

the appropriate place to determine what claims are actually contained in the operative complaint. 

Once the Magistrate Judge schedules this case for trial, the parties remain free to file briefs on what

causes of action they believe are contained in the complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration areGRANTED and the court will re-review the

Findings and Recommendations in light of the September 25, 2009 objections;

2. After considering the objections and the entire file, the court ADOPTS the Findings

and Recommendations, filed August 19, 2009; 

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed December 27, 2006, is GRANTED

IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Defendant Tracy is granted summary judgment on the excessive force claim

against him arising from the April 17, 2002 cell extraction;

b. Defendants are granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim

concerning the April 17, 2002 cell extraction;

c. Defendant Lawton is granted summary judgment on the excessive force claim

against him arising from the May 5, 2002 use of force incident;

d. Defendants are granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s denial of access to

the courts claim;

e. Defendants are granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim

concerning his continued placement on strip cell status from May 13, 2002 to

May 24, 2002;

3

Case 1:04-cv-05953-LJO-EPG Document 174 Filed 04/09/10 Page 3 of 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

f. Defendants are granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for damages

against Defendants in their official capacities;

g. The remainder of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied; and

4. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge to set a briefing schedule.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 1:04-cv-05953-LJO-EPG Document 174 Filed 04/09/10 Page 4 of 4