Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00639/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00639-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARJIE HAYMON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SBC, AY&T, AND PG&E, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:07-CV-0639 AWI DLB

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

TO REOPEN CASE

(Document #13)

BACKGROUND

In this action, Plaintiff filed a complaint that alleged it was being brought pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleged that she was injured by a loose SBC cable while she was

walking down a street. Plaintiff claims the cable was attached to a PG&E pole.

On July 23, 2007, the Magistrate Judge screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2) and recommended the action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the

complaint fails to allege that state actors violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. On

December 12, 2007, the court adopted the Findings and Recommendations. The court agreed

that the complaint failed to state a claim for a civil rights violation because there were no

allegations that the defendants were state actors and because Plaintiff failed to explain what

constitutional right had been violated. Because Plaintiff was previously given notice of these

pleading deficiencies, the court dismissed the case without leave to amend.

Case 1:07-cv-00639-AWI-DLB Document 14 Filed 03/17/08 Page 1 of 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 2

LEGAL STANDARD

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 for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to make

new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood

Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9 Cir.1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the th

court to rethink what it has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112,

1116 (D.Ariz.1998). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with

the Court's decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before

rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.” United States v.

Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 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) (en banc). To succeed, a th

party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its

prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665

(E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9 Cir. 1987). th

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment

on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an

adverse party, . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, in

any event “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” 

Id.

DISCUSSION 

Nothing in the motion to reopen this case causes the court to believe that it erred in

dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. In her motion to reopen,

Case 1:07-cv-00639-AWI-DLB Document 14 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 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

 The court is not saying that Plaintiff has no remedy, such as a negligence claim, against

1

these defendants. The court only finds that Plaintiff cannot allege a constitutional claim based

on the events underlying this action against these Defendants. 

3

Plaintiff again states that she was injured by SCB’s cable. Petitioner states that there are now

guards by the cable poles. Plaintiff claims that Defendants will not pay for her doctor visit. 

Plaintiff argues that under the Constitution Defendants are obligated to make what’s wrong,

right. 

 Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows suits against state actors

for actions taken under state law that violate the Constitution, and reads in part:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must plead (1) that the

defendant acted under color of state law and (2) that the defendant deprived him of rights secured

by the Constitution or federal statutes. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir.

1986). Here, both the original and amended complaint failed to allege a constitutional right that

was violated. In addition, the named defendants are not state actors acting under color of state

law. The defendants are private companies. Generally, private parties are not acting under color

of state law. See Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motion to reopen this action must be denied.1

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00639-AWI-DLB Document 14 Filed 03/17/08 Page 3 of 3