Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01608/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01608-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY NIELSEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSE LOPEZ, et al.,,

Defendants.

No. 1: 14-cv-01608-DAD-MJS (PC)

ORDER

(ECF No. 33)

Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of the court’s October 7, 2015 order adopting 

findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of certain claims and defendants and 

denial of plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory appeal. For the reasons set forth below, the motion 

for reconsideration will be granted in part and denied in part. 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1 & 8.) This action was originally filed on September 8, 

2014, in the Sacramento Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California 

and was transferred to the Fresno Division of the court on October 15, 2014. (ECF No. 4.)

This matter proceeds on plaintiff’s amended complaint. (ECF No. 27.) The assigned magistrate 

judge screened that complaint and found that it stated a cognizable excessive force claim against 

Defendant Lopez. (ECF No. 28.) The magistrate judge also recommended that: (1) plaintiff 

Case 1:14-cv-01608-DAD-MJS Document 40 Filed 01/06/16 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

2

proceed on the excessive force claim against Defendant Lopez; (2) all other claims asserted in the 

amended complaint and all other named defendants be dismissed; and (3) plaintiff’s motion for 

interlocutory appeal be denied as moot. (Id.) On October 7, 2015, the then assigned district 

judge adopted those findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 30.) 

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s “request for correction of records; objection” (ECF 

No. 33), which will be construed as a motion for reconsideration.

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) allows the Court to “correct a clerical mistake or a 

mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other 

part of the record.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) allows the Court to relieve a party 

from an order due to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” In seeking 

reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show “what new or different 

facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior 

motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear 

error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. 

Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009), and “‘[a] party seeking 

reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and 

‘recapitulation . . .’” of that which was already considered by the court in rendering its decision. 

United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting 

Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 834, 856 (D. N.J. 1992)).

B. Analysis

Here, plaintiff requests that the court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations recommending dismissal of his non-cognizable claims with prejudice and 

denial of his motion for interlocutory appeal as moot, be corrected to note that he is a civil 

detainee; not a prisoner. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) allows the Court to correct a 

Case 1:14-cv-01608-DAD-MJS Document 40 Filed 01/06/16 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

3

clerical error in an order. The characterization of plaintiff as a state prisoner in the court’s order 

adopting the findings and recommendations in question had no bearing on the analysis of the 

claims presented by plaintiff in his amended complaint. The assigned magistrate judge correctly 

noted and analyzed plaintiff’s claims under the standards governing actions brought by civil 

detainees. Nonetheless, the court will correct this arguable clerical error.

Plaintiff also objects to the dismissal of the John/Jane Doe defendants he identified in his 

amended complaint “because he did not have the opportunity to discover their true identities.” 

(ECF No. 33 at 2.) While Plaintiff lists John/Jane Does 1-10 in the caption of his amended 

complaint, he did not name them as defendants in the section provided to do so. (ECF No. 27 at 

1-2.) Moreover, plaintiff is not allowed to proceed against the Doe defendants not because he did 

not identify them by name in his amended complaint, but because he failed to allege any facts 

linking any of the Doe defendants to an alleged violation of his constitutional rights. See Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (a plaintiff asserting a § 1983 claim must allege facts 

demonstrating that each named defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights). 

Plaintiff was advised in the assigned magistrate judge’s original screening order (ECF No. 8.) that 

he was required to allege facts establishing an actual connection or link between the actions of 

each defendant and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered. Plaintiff failed to do so in his 

amended complaint with respect to the Doe defendants. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration in this regard will be denied.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 1:14-cv-01608-DAD-MJS Document 40 Filed 01/06/16 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

4

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration (ECF No. 33.) is granted, in part, and denied, in part. The order adopting (ECF 

No. 30.) is corrected to reflect that plaintiff is a civil detainee, not a state prisoner. Plaintiff’s 

motion to reconsider the dismissal of the Doe defendants is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2016 

 DALE A. DROZD

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01608-DAD-MJS Document 40 Filed 01/06/16 Page 4 of 4