Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01028/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01028-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LUIS VALENZUELA RODRIGUEZ, ) 

 Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. CIV S-08-1028 BJR 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

 ) RECONSIDERATION 

JAMES TILTON, et al. ) 

 Defendants. ) 

__________________________________________ 

 This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Luiz Valenzuela Rodriguez’s Ex Parte Motion 

for Reconsideration and/or Correction of Court’s Order of Dismissal of Several Defendants filed 

on November 4, 2010. (Dkt. No. 35.) Plaintiff requests that the court reconsider its September 

29, 2010 Order dismissing several defendants and ordering service on the remaining defendants.1

(Dkt. No. 34.) Mr. Rodriguez contends that the court mistakenly caused several defendants to be 

 

1

 The court screened the proposed third amended complaint, filed on April 26, 2010, pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Prior to this, the court had screened an amended complaint and ordered 

service on defendants three times, on May 28, 2008, October 6, 2009 and February 23, 2010. 

(Dkt. Nos. 3, 11 and 20.) The court notified Plaintiff in the September 29, 2010 Order that: (1) it 

would not entertain any further motions to amend the complaint unless in response to the 

defendants’ pleadings; (2) Plaintiff should provide the Clerk of Court the forms necessary to 

effect service on the defendants; and (3) if the Plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s 

instructions, the case would be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 34.) 

Case 2:08-cv-01028-GEB-AC Document 36 Filed 11/22/10 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

dismissed and may have inadvertently screened the wrong amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 35 at 

1-2.) 

 The present motion is meritless. Plaintiff failed to show either manifest error or raise new 

facts or legal authority that could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought to the court’s 

attention earlier. However, the court does find that it inadvertently failed to include Defendants 

Campbell, Garcia, and Micholetti among those defendants that were dismissed from this action. 

Plaintiff failed to allege specific individual conduct by Warden Campbell that affirmatively 

linked him to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009) 

(noting that supervisory personnel are generally not liable under section 1983 for the actions of 

their employees, plaintiff must plead that the official, through his or her own individual actions, 

violated the constitution). Similarly, Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to state an Eighth 

Amendment claim upon which relief may be granted as to Defendant Micholetti. Plaintiff alleges 

that Defendant Micholetti confiscated his personal effects (television, clothes, food and other 

such items) and also “wished [Plaintiff] would’ve died.” (Dkt. No. 32 at 37-38.) Such 

allegations, without more, are not sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference to a 

serious medical need. Finally, Plaintiff raises no allegations whatsoever against Defendant 

Garcia. Accordingly, the September 29, 2010 Order shall be modified to reflect that Defendants 

Campbell, Micholetti and Garcia are dismissed from the action. 

 Plaintiff further alleges that the Clerk of the Court mistakenly sent him a copy of the 

February 8, 2010 proposed amended complaint along with a copy of the September 29, 2010 

Order.2

 The Clerk of Court is instructed to send Plaintiff a file-stamped copy of the July 5, 2010 

 

2 Plaintiff is concerned that the court may have inadvertently screened this copy of the proposed 

amended complaint instead of the July 5, 2010 amended complaint. Such error did not occur. 

Case 2:08-cv-01028-GEB-AC Document 36 Filed 11/22/10 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

Barbara Jacobs Rothstein 

U.S. District Court Judge 

amended complaint, which is now the operative complaint in this matter. The remainder of the 

present motion is denied. 

 Based on the foregoing: 

 1. Defendants Campbell, Micholetti and Garcia are DISMISSED from this action; 

 2. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a file-stamped copy of the July 5, 2010 

Amended Complaint; and 

 3. Plaintiff’s motion to correct the dismissal of defendants is DENIED. 

PLAINTIFF HAS THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER TO SUBMIT 

THE FORMS AS INSTRUCTED IN THE SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 ORDER OR THIS 

ACTION WILL BE DISMISSED. 

 DATED this 19th day of November, 2010. 

 /s/ Barbara Jacobs Rothstein

Case 2:08-cv-01028-GEB-AC Document 36 Filed 11/22/10 Page 3 of 3