Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02232/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02232-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

3:15-cv-02232-L-AGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVE THOMAS, as Guardian ad Litem 

on behalf of JONATHAN THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-02232-L-AGS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION [Doc. 78] FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Pending before the Court is Defendants Marylene Allen, Larry Deguzman, Mary 

Montelibano, and David Guzman’s (collectively “Defendants”) motion for 

reconsideration of the denial [Doc. 74] of their Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion [Doc. 58] 

to dismiss the claims against them. The parties are well aware of the facts of this case, 

which were discussed in the Court’s previous Order. (Order [Doc. 74] 2:1–4:3.) By way 

of background, Jonathan Thomas (“Thomas”) is a person who has suffered from a variety 

of mental disorders and attempted suicide three times by jumping off the upper tier of an 

inmate housing area. Thomas’ father Dave (“Plaintiff”)

1 has adequately alleged that 

 

1 Dave Thomas is suing as guardian ad litem on behalf of his son. 

Case 3:15-cv-02232-L-AGS Document 79 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:15-cv-02232-L-AGS

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

Defendants were aware of or certainly should have been aware of Thomas’ suicidal 

tendencies and the seemingly substantial risk presented by housing him in an upper tier 

under low supervision levels. Nevertheless, Plaintiff alleges that each of the moving 

defendants approved Thomas for housing on an upper tier under low supervision levels. 

Accordingly, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the first and fifth causes of 

action against them, respectively alleging deliberate indifference in violation of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and negligence. (Order.) Defendants now move for reconsideration of this 

denial. 

A district court has the power to reconsider and amend a previous order. See Fed. 

R. Civ P. 59(e). However, a district court generally should not grant a motion for 

reconsideration unless (1) the moving party presents newly discovered evidence, (2) there 

is an intervening change in the controlling law or (3) the original ruling was clearly 

erroneous. 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Here, none of these bases for granting a motion for reconsideration are present. 

Defendants have not presented any newly discovered evidence nor cited to authority 

showing an intervening change in controlling law. Nor have Defendants presented any 

new or colorable arguments as why the Court’s decision was clearly erroneous. Rather, 

Defendants simply repeat the same arguments the Court has already considered and 

rejected in the course of ruling upon Defendants’ earlier motion to dismiss. The Court 

declines to repeat the same analyses and instead refers Defendants to the previous Order. 

(See Order.) 

Defendants also seek clarification as to whether the Court made findings of fact 

that are binding as law of the case. The answer is no. As explained in the Court’s 

previous order, Defendants’ motion was a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion. (Order 4:5–

22.) In ruling upon Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court properly assumed all of 

Plaintiff’s allegations to be true and construed them in favor of Plaintiff. (Id.) Such a 

ruling certainly does not foreclose a defendant from presenting evidence at later stages of 

the litigation that disputes the accuracy of a plaintiff’s allegations. Nor did the Court 

Case 3:15-cv-02232-L-AGS Document 79 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:15-cv-02232-L-AGS

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

hold that Defendants’ cannot reassert their qualified immunity argument at a later stage 

with the benefit of an evidentiary record. Rather, the Court simply held that, based on the 

allegations contained in the First Amended Complaint, Defendants are not entitled to 

qualified immunity at the pleadings stage. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for 

reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2017

 

Case 3:15-cv-02232-L-AGS Document 79 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3