Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00293/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00293-16/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD F. MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00293 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[ECF No. 96]

Plaintiff Ronald F. Martinez (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 18, 2011. Plaintiff filed a First Amended 

Complaint (“FAC”) on September 30, 2011. (ECF No. 9.) On February 13, 2012, the Court found 

cognizable claims against 1) Defendants Vasquez, T. Wan, C. Moreno, R. Tolsen, B. Peterson, 

Clark, Allison, R. Diaz, S. Sherman, and Does 1 through 10 for deliberate indifference in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment for deprivation of exercise and 2) Vasquez, Moreno, Tolsen, Peterson, 

Clark, Allison, Diaz, Sherman, A. Hernandez, Gomez, and Does 1 through 10 for violation of the 

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 12.)

On July 15, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 64.) On 

March 14, 2014, the Court issued a findings and recommendations recommending granting 

Defendants’ motion, and thus concluding this action in its entirety. (ECF No. 87.) Plaintiff filed 

objections on April 29, 2014. (ECF No. 90.) On August 11, 2014, the undersigned adopted the 

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 97 Filed 09/18/14 Page 1 of 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

2

findings and recommendations in full and granted summary judgment for Defendants, thus 

concluding the action.

On August 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 59(e). Pursuant to Rule 59(e), the motion must be made within 28 days after entry of 

judgment. Since judgment was entered on August 11, 2014, the motion is timely. Defendants did 

not file an opposition. Therefore, the motion is deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). 

DISCUSSION

Under Rule 59(e), a motion to alter or amend a judgment applies to “[a]ny motion to alter or 

amend a judgment” and is appropriate “if the district court: (1) is presented with newly discovered 

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an 

intervening change in controlling law.” Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Manto, 417 F.3d 1060, 1064 n. 1 

(9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. 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).

In this matter, Plaintiff has not demonstrated grounds for relief under Rule 59(e). 

Specifically, he has not pointed to any new controlling law or newly discovered evidence. Further, 

the Court does not find that entry of summary judgment was based on clear error or resulted in a 

manifest injustice. In the instant motion for reconsideration, plaintiff merely disputes the findings of 

the Court and presents arguments he offered earlier and which the Court rejected.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is 

DENIED and this action remains closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 97 Filed 09/18/14 Page 2 of 2