Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01412/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01412-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN,

CDCR #H-76785 Civil

No. 

14cv1412 GPC (JMA)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION; 

(2) GRANTING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

vs.

J. COOK; J. CHAU; R. DAVIS;

R. RUSSELL; MR. PHAM; K.

LACORUM; D. DONOGHUE;

J. WALKER; S. NIZAMANI,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, currently housed at the California Men’s Colony located in San Luis

Obispo, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On June 18, 2014, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and sua sponte dismissed his Complaint as

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff was

granted leave to file an amended pleading in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading

identified in the Court’s Order. (Id. at 5-6.) Plaintiff has now filed a Motion for

Reconsideration of the June 18, 2014 Order. (ECF No. 7.)

1 14cv1412 GPC (JMA)

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 8 Filed 07/25/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

I. Motion for Reconsideration

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for

reconsideration. However, a motion for reconsideration may be construed as a motion

1

to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). See Osterneck v. Ernst &

Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d

1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994). Under Rule 60, a motion for “relief from a final judgment,

order or proceeding” may be filed within a “reasonable time,” but usually must be filed

“no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the

proceeding.” FED.R.CIV.P. 60(c). Reconsideration under Rule 60 may be granted in

the case of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly

discovered evidence; or (3) fraud; or if (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has

been satisfied; or (6) for any other reason justifying relief. FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b).

Plaintiff objects to the Court’s Order finding that the claims in this action were

identical to two previous actions filed by Plaintiff. A court “may take notice of

proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those

proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United States ex rel. Robinson

Rancherita Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). In the

first action referenced by the Court in the June 18, 2014 Order, Plaintiff filed an eighty

four (84) page complaint in which he claims constitutional violations ranging from

January 26, 2012 through September 9, 2013. See Heilman v. Ridge, et al., S.D. Cal.

Civil Case No. 13cv2788 JLS (DHB), ECF Doc. No. 1 at 1 (“Ridge”). In addition,

Plaintiff alleged DefendantCook, who is a Defendant in the action before thisCourt, was

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs during this 2012 to 2013 time frame. 

Plaintiff claims in his Motion that “the acts as described in the Ridge, et al case are

However, Local Rule 7.1(i) does permit motions for reconsideration. Under Local Rule 1

7.1(i)(1), a party may apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition

for any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part....”S.D.

CAL. CIVLR 7.1(i). The party seeking reconsideration must show “what new or different facts and

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.” 

Id.

2 14cv1412 GPC (JMA)

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 8 Filed 07/25/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

dissimilar in nature, and not in the same time period as the acts described in the instant

action.” Pl.’s Mtn. for Recon., ECF No. 7, at 4. However, this statement by Plaintiff is

directly contradicted by the first page of the complaint he filed in the Ridge action which

does cover the same time period as the allegations in this action and names some of the

same Defendants. Moreover, Plaintiff is alleging deliberate indifference to his serious

medical needs by Defendant Cook in both cases. If there is a truly separate issue from

the claims raised in the Ridge matter, Plaintiff will have the opportunity to clarify that

by filing an amended pleading in this action.

Plaintiff also claims as to the second matter which the Court found duplicative

claims, Heilman v. Silva, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 13cv2984 JLS (MDD), he

“inadvertently” included the same claims against the same Defendants in this matter. 

Plaintiff “moves the Court to reconsider its ruling to dismiss the case without prejudice

to allow the filing of a First Amended Complaint.” Pl.’s Mtn. Recon. at 5. This request

is moot in light of the fact that the Court has already granted Plaintiff leave to file a First

Amended Complaint in this matter. See June 18, 2014 Order at 6.

A motion for reconsideration cannot be granted merely because Plaintiff is

unhappy with the judgment, frustrated by the Court’s application of the facts to binding

precedent or because he disagrees with the ultimate decision. See 11 Charles Alan

Wright & ArthurR. Miller Federal Practice &Procedure 2d § 2858 (Supp. 2007) (citing

Edwards v. Velvac, Inc., 19 F.R.D. 504, 507 (D. Wis. 1956)). Plaintiff has failed to

provide any factual or evidentiary support for any basis under Rule 60(b) that would

justify vacating the Court’s June 18, 2014 Order.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court hereby

(1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration; and 

(2) Sua sponte GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File a

First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff is granted sixty (60) days leave from

3 14cv1412 GPC (JMA)

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 8 Filed 07/25/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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 date this Order is entered in which to file a First Amended Complaint which cures

all the deficiencies of pleading noted in the Court’s June 18, 2014 Order. Plaintiff is

once again cautioned that should he elect to amend, his Amended Complaint must be

complete in itself, that it will supersede his original Complaint, and that any claim not

re-alleged against anyDefendant previously named will be considered waived. See S.D.

CAL.CIVLR 15.1; King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is further

cautioned that the Local Rule provides that complaints filed by prisoners pursuant to

§ 1983 may use the court’s approved form, along with no more than an additional fifteen

(15) pages. S.D. Cal. CivLr 8.2(a). 

(3) The Clerk of Court is directly to mail Plaintiff a blank court approved civil

rights complaint form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 25, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

4 14cv1412 GPC (JMA)

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 8 Filed 07/25/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4