Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-03520/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-03520-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS DANIEL CLARK,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. JEFFREY BEARD,

Defendant.

Case No. 11-cv-03520-YGR (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Douglas Daniel Clark, an inmate on death row at San Quentin State Prison

(“SQSP”), filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he alleged only one 

claim—a First Amendment challenge to a prison regulation limiting his 602 inmate appeals. Dkt. 

21-1. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, in which he argued that the regulation 

limiting non-emergency appeals does not violate Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. Dkt. 65. On 

July 20, 2015, the Court granted Defendant’s motion and entered judgment in favor of Defendant. 

Dkts. 78, 79. The Court agreed with Defendant and found that Plaintiff does not have a First 

Amendment right to file unlimited non-emergency appeals. Dkt. 78 at 7. The Court also held 

that, even if Plaintiff had a right to file unlimited non-emergency appeals, the regulation limiting 

the number of such appeals is valid because it relates to a legitimate penological interest. Id. at 12.

After being granted an extension of time to do so, Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend 

the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).1 Dkt. 86.

For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion is DENIED.

 

1 On September 15, 2015, the Court granted Petitioner’s timely filed motion for an 

extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, and gave him a new deadline of October 13, 

2015. Dkts. 82, 85. Because Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time was filed within twentyeight days from the date final judgment was entered, and because his motion for reconsideration 

was filed before the October 13, 2015 due date, the Court construes the instant motion as a timely 

motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (A motion to alter 

or amend judgment under Rule 59 must be made no later than twenty-eight days after entry of 

judgment.).

Case 4:11-cv-03520-YGR Document 97 Filed 07/26/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. DISCUSSION

A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) “‘should not be granted, absent highly 

unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the law.’” McDowell v. Calderon, 

197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc). A district court does not commit 

clear error warranting reconsideration when the question before it is a debatable one. See id. at 

1256 (district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration where question whether 

it could enter protective order in habeas action limiting Attorney General’s use of documents from 

trial counsel’s file was debatable). Finally, a motion under Rule 59(e) is not a vehicle permitting 

the unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented or to present “contentions 

which might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F. 

Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991). These holdings “reflect[] district courts’ concerns for 

preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial efficiency.” Id.

Here, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion and other evidence in support 

thereof. First, in his motion, Plaintiff makes a conclusory argument that the Court erred in

granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant by basing such a ruling “entirely upon the 

unreliable and provably perjur[i]ous and deceitful declarations made to the [C]ourt.” Dkt. 86 at 1.2 

Specifically, as Plaintiff did in his opposition, he again argues that the Court should not have 

considered the declaration of SQSP Appeals Coordinator M.L. Davis filed in support of 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Compare Dkt. 86 at 1, 12-16 with Dkt. 69 at 18-19. 

In granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant, the Court previously addressed this 

argument as follows:

SQSP Appeals Coordinator M.L. Davis submitted two separate 

declarations in support of Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment and reply, respectively. Dkts. 65-1, 72. According to 

Davis, Plaintiff has submitted 556 appeals since 1996. Davis Decl., 

Dkt. 65-1 at 4; Davis Decl. 2, Dkt. 72 at 1. Plaintiff disputes this 

number and alleges that “well over 100 of the listings are not filed 

appeals.” Dkt. 69 at 19. Davis responds that the disputed appeals 

“were screened out before being accepted at the first level,” but 

 

2

Page number citations refer to those assigned by the Court’s electronic case management 

filing system and not those assigned by Plaintiff.

Case 4:11-cv-03520-YGR Document 97 Filed 07/26/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“were still submitted to the appeals office.” Davis Decl. 2, Dkt. 72 

at 2. Despite any disagreement over the exact number of appeals 

Plaintiff filed, both parties agree that the prison regulation at issue 

limits the number of appeals he may file. Dkts. 21-1 at 3-4, 65 at 8. 

Furthermore, both parties agree that SQSP officials have rejected 

appeals from Plaintiff based on the regulation’s non-emergency 

appeal limitation. Dkt. 21-1 at 23; Davis Decl., Dkt. 65-1 at 4; Dkt. 

69 at 9. Thus, while the Court notes Plaintiff’s objections to Davis’s 

declarations, it recognizes that determining the actual number of 

Plaintiff’s appeals is unnecessary to resolve the instant summary 

judgment motion. The pertinent issue at hand is whether the 

challenged regulation’s limitation on appeals violates Plaintiff’s 

First Amendment rights. 

Dkt. 78 at 4-5. Thus, Plaintiff is merely rehashing an argument he presented previously, which is 

not proper in a Rule 59(e) motion. See Costello, 765 F. Supp. at 1009.

Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff continues to rehash his previous arguments, 

including: that he has a First Amendment right to file unlimited non-emergency appeals, and that 

the regulation did not further a legitimate penological interest. Compare Dkt. 86 at 8-27 to Dkts. 

69, 73. As stated above, a motion to alter or amend the judgment is not the proper vehicle for 

relitigating previous arguments—raised in Plaintiff’s opposition to summary judgment and in his 

sur-reply—which have already been ruled on. See Costello, 765 F. Supp. at 1009. Furthermore, 

Plaintiff neither alleges the discovery of new evidence nor an intervening change in the controlling 

law. See McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255. Therefore, Plaintiff’s arguments in his Rule 59(e) motion 

do not warrant reconsideration of the Court’s July 20, 2015 Order granting Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion is DENIED. Dkt. 86.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons outlined above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion is DENIED. Dkt. 86.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate the instant action with his other closed cases is 

inappropriate and not warranted; therefore, it is DENIED. Dkt. 91.

3. This Order terminates Docket Nos. 86 and 91.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

July 26, 2016

Case 4:11-cv-03520-YGR Document 97 Filed 07/26/16 Page 3 of 3