Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00412/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00412-21/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT ALAN ANTON, 

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

C/O TAKIER, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:05-cv-000412- OWW-YNP- SMS-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 58 )

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

302. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the October 8, 2009,

order adopting the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and dismissing this

action for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit.1

 Plaintiff proceeded on a failure to protect claim against Defendant Correctional Officer

Mendez. The claim stems from a disturbance on Tuesday, September 28, 2004, at CSP Corcoran

on B yard. Plaintiff was attacked by other inmates. Plaintiff alleges that while he was on the

ground in a prone position, Defendant Mendez shot him with a 40mm baton launcher, striking

 On July 24, 2008, an order was entered by the District Court adopting the findings and 1

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and dismissing Defendants Ruiz, Scribner and

Plaintiff’s medical care claim. Defendant Mendez was the sole remaining defendant. 

Case 1:05-cv-00412-OWW -WMW Document 62 Filed 06/29/10 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

him in the left hand with a wooden block. Defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)

mandates that prisoners may not bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 until such administrative

remedies as are available are exhausted. On August 25, 2009, findings and recommendations

were entered, recommending that Defendant Mendez’s motion to dismiss be granted, and this

action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to

filing suit. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that Defendant had met his burden of

coming forward with evidence that, though Plaintiff filed numerous inmate grievances, he failed

to file an inmate grievance regarding the conduct at issue in this lawsuit. 

The findings and recommendations indicated that Plaintiff did file a document captioned

as a “§ 832.5 citizen’s complaint.” Plaintiff did include as an exhibit an inmate grievance form,

CDCR form 602, dated September 30, 2006. That grievance was filed at CSP Lancaster, and

addressed Plaintiff’s request for emergency dental care. Plaintiff also filed a document styled as

an opposition to Plaintiff’s reply. Plaintiff attached a grievance that directly addressed the

conduct at issue in this lawsuit. The grievance however, was dated August 1, 2008. The

Magistrate Judge concluded that though Plaintiff did attempt to exhaust his administrative

remedies by filing a grievance on August of 2008, the Ninth Circuit has held that District Courts

are required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act to dismiss actions without prejudice where

the prisoner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit but was in the

process of doing so when the motion to dismiss was filed. McKinney v, Carey, 311 F.3d 1198

(9 Cir. 2002). The findings and recommendations were entered on August 25, 2009. Plaintiff th

failed to timely file objections, and the findings and recommendations were adopted by the

District Court on October 8, 2009. On October 20, 2009, Plaintiff filed objections and the

motion for reconsideration that is before the Court.

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

district court. The rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment

2

Case 1:05-cv-00412-OWW -WMW Document 62 Filed 06/29/10 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

on the 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.

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. th

1983)(en banc). To succeed, a 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), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988). The Ninth Circuit has th

held that “[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding

clauses.’” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9 Cir. th

1986), quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9 Cir. 1981). Accordingly, “the th

clause is reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id.

Plaintiff’s objections consist of 5 pages of written argument and 15 pages of exhibits. 

Plaintiff’s argument consists of a rambling narrative, largely taken up with generalized

statements regarding the facts alleged in the complaint. Plaintiff also makes general reference to

the grievance process, and expresses his dissatisfaction with the rulings in this case. Plaintiff

appears to argue that he does state a claim for relief against Defendant Mendez, and that he has

exhausted his administrative remedies. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s exhibits, and finds

that Plaintiff has not come forward with any evidence that he exhausted his available

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. The exhibits clearly indicate that Plaintiff attempted

to exhaust his remedies after this suit was filed, as noted in the August 25, 2009, finding and

recommendation. There is no evidence that Plaintiff exhausted his remedies before filing this

lawsuit.

3

Case 1:05-cv-00412-OWW -WMW Document 62 Filed 06/29/10 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

In his document titled as a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff indicates that he

attempted to object to the findings and recommendations by submitting them under another

inmate’s name. The inmate Plaintiff refers to filed four civil rights cases in this district, all of

which are closed. Plaintiff has cited no new facts, new law, mistake, fraud, or other

extraordinary circumstances that would entitle Plaintiff to reconsideration. See Fed.R.Civ.Pro.

60(b); Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 72(a); Local Rule 230(j). As such, Plaintiff is not entitled to

reconsideration. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of

the October 8, 2009, order dismissing this action is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 1:05-cv-00412-OWW -WMW Document 62 Filed 06/29/10 Page 4 of 4