Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02406/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02406-5/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

17-cv-02406-JLB-KSC

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

DAVID RADEMAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. PARAMO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-02406-JLB-KSC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

[ECF No. 71]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 71.) Plaintiff 

requests that the Court reconsider its Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 72.) The Court granted 

Plaintiff’s three motions for extension of time to file a reply (ECF Nos. 77; 78; 80), but to 

date, Plaintiff has not filed a reply and his final February 17, 2020 reply deadline has 

expired (ECF No. 81). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Reconsideration.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion for Reconsideration Under Rule 59(e) or 60(b)

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 to 

alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) if it is filed within twenty-eight days of the ruling

Case 3:17-cv-02406-JLB-KSC Document 82 Filed 02/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

17-cv-02406-JLB-KSC

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

or entry of judgment; otherwise, it may be construed as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from 

a judgment or order. Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 

892, 898–99 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Here, the Court issued its Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment on September 26, 2019, and the Clerk of Court entered judgment the next day 

on September 27, 2019. (ECF Nos. 68; 69.) Plaintiff constructively filed his Motion for 

Reconsideration on October 14, 2019. (See ECF No. 71 at 25.) Accordingly, the Court 

construes Plaintiff’s motion as a Rule 59(e) motion, as it was filed within twenty-eight days 

of both the Court’s ruling and entry of judgment. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc., 248 

F.3d at 898–99. 

B. Standard for Reconsideration Under Rule 59(e) 

Pursuant to Rule 59(e), district courts have the power to reconsider a previous ruling

or entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). However, Rule 59(e) “offers an extraordinary 

remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial 

resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)

(quoting 12 James W. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 54.78[1] (3d ed. 2000)). 

Under Rule 59(e), a court may appropriately alter or amend a previous ruling or judgment 

only if: (1) it “is presented with newly discovered evidence”; (2) it “committed clear error 

or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust”; or (3) “there is an intervening 

change in controlling law.” United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 

772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th 

Cir. 2001)).

Motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) may not be used to relitigate issues 

already decided by the Court “or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have 

been raised prior to entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 

n.5 (2008) (quoting 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure

§ 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)); see also Ausmus v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 08–CV–2342–L, 2009 

WL 2058549, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2009) (“A motion for reconsideration is not another 

Case 3:17-cv-02406-JLB-KSC Document 82 Filed 02/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

17-cv-02406-JLB-KSC

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

opportunity for the losing party to make its strongest case, reassert arguments, or revamp 

previously unmeritorious arguments.”). It does not give parties a “second bite at the apple.”

Strobel v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, No. 04CV1069 BEN(BLM), 2007 WL 1053454, 

at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2007). “‘[A]fter thoughts’ or ‘shifting of ground’ do not constitute 

an appropriate basis for reconsideration.” Ausmus, 2009 WL 2058549, at *2.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Request for Reconsideration 

1. Parties’ Arguments

Plaintiff titles his motion “Motion, Declaration for Hon. Jill L. Burkhardt to 

Reconsider Her September 26, 2019 Ruling Granting Defendant[s’] Motion for Summary 

Judgement [sic] Dismissing #17-cv-02406-JLB-KSC,” but therein makes no argument that 

there is “newly discovered evidence,” that the Court “committed clear error or made an 

initial decision that was manifestly unjust,” or that “there is an intervening change in 

controlling law.” United Nat’l Ins. Co., 555 F.3d at 780. Instead, Plaintiff’s motion and 

its exhibits detail allegations of: (1) a July 18, 2019 “attempted murder” of Plaintiff by 

“skin head” inmates that was “orchestrated” and then “covered up” by Richard J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility (“RJDCF”) staff (ECF No. 71 at 1–2, 7, 21); (2) his legal mail not 

going out (id. at 14, 16, 18–19); and (3) RJDCF staff leaving all his “personal property 

out” on August 27, 2019, “in the middle of the dayroom floor in a[n] unsecured area letting 

hundreds of inmates take what they want[ed]” (id. at 3, 21). Plaintiff also seems to imply 

in his motion that the “D. Decastro” he named as a defendant in his Complaint is not 

Defendant Decastro, but Defendant Decastro’s son. (Id. at 3, 23.) 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff “does not base his request [for reconsideration] on 

the facts of this case,” but rather “he raises issues that have no bearing on the outcome of 

the motion.” (ECF No. 72 at 1.) Specifically, Defendants contend that the alleged

attempted murder of Plaintiff and his loss of property both “occurred after he filed his 

opposition to summary judgment,” so Plaintiff cannot claim he was unable to oppose 

Defendants’ motion due to these events. (Id. at 1, 3–4.) Further, as to Plaintiff’s “mailroom 

Case 3:17-cv-02406-JLB-KSC Document 82 Filed 02/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

17-cv-02406-JLB-KSC

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

issues,” Defendants argue that “Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file his 

opposition to the motion for summary judgment was granted, he filed his opposition, and 

it was considered by the Court.” (Id. at 4.) Defendants claim that consequently, Plaintiff

cannot argue that any mailroom issues precluded him from opposing Defendants’ motion. 

(Id.) 

Lastly, Defendants provide that Defendant Decastro is retired and his son is a current 

employee at RJDCF. However, Defendants argue that it was, in fact, R. Decastro, the 

father, who Plaintiff named in his Complaint. (Id.) Defendants point to Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, which states that Defendant “R. Decastro was, at all times mentioned herein, a 

Supervising Correctional Cook” who was “responsible for failing on October 15, 2015 to 

take corrective action to ensure Plaintiff was being provided . . . adequate and appropriate 

Kosher food.” (Id. at 4 (quoting ECF No. 1 at 5).) Defendants argue that “[i]n October 

2015, R. Decastro, the father, held the title stated in the Complaint[;] R. Decastro, the son, 

did not.” (Id.) 

2. Analysis

Here, Plaintiff fails to articulate any legitimate basis for the Court to reconsider its 

Order granting Defendants summary judgment. Plaintiff’s allegations of the alleged 

attempt on his life and his loss of property, both of which occurred after Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment was fully briefed, are unrelated to the core of Plaintiff’s 

complaint in this case—an inadequate Kosher diet. Additionally, as Defendants highlight, 

Plaintiff’s argument concerning his legal mail not going out—a repeated and 

unsubstantiated complaint by Plaintiff (e.g., ECF Nos. 32; 47; 48)—lacks merit. Plaintiff 

successfully filed two motions for an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ motion

(ECF Nos. 47; 48) and an opposition to Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 62). Even if Plaintiff 

did experience difficulties in sending his legal mail, Plaintiff does not argue that there are 

documents he sent to this Court that it did not receive, nor does it appear that any filings in 

this case were affected. 

Case 3:17-cv-02406-JLB-KSC Document 82 Filed 02/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

17-cv-02406-JLB-KSC

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

Further, Plaintiff does not argue that there is a change in controlling authority or new 

evidence that would make it appropriate for the Court to reconsider its Order. To the extent 

Plaintiff believes that the Court committed “clear error” by granting summary judgment in 

favor of Defendant Decastro, that is, the elder R. Decastro, Plaintiff’s argument is baseless. 

First, the Complaint states that Defendant Decastro was the “Supervising Correctional 

Cook” who “on October 15, 2015” “fail[ed] . . . to take correction action to ensure Plaintiff 

was provided an adequate and appropriate Kosher” diet. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Defendants 

provide that on October 15, 2015, “R. Decastro, the father, held the title stated in the 

Complaint.” (ECF No. 72 at 4.) Second, regardless of which R. Decastro Plaintiff named

or attempted to name in the Complaint, the Court’s Order granting summary judgment for 

Defendants did not turn on the specific actions of any of the Defendants. Rather, the Court 

found that Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims lacked merit themselves, irrespective of any 

individual Defendant’s actions.

1

 The Court therefore agrees with Defendants that 

“[w]hether Plaintiff [sued] R. Decastro (current prison employee), or R. Decastro (retired 

prison employee), makes no difference to the motion for summary judgment.” (ECF No. 

72 at 4.) 

Because Plaintiff has not presented any legitimate basis for the Court to reconsider 

its Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration. 

B. Request for Extension of Time to File “Response to Summary Judgment 

Dismissal”

Additionally, in the motion’s caption, Plaintiff states that he filed the Motion for 

Reconsideration “because [he] needs additional time to recover all his legal files inter alia

 

1

In its Order granting summary judgment for Defendants, the Court found that the 

timing of Plaintiff’s kosher meal distribution, the fact that Plaintiff’s kosher meal on the 

Sabbath arrived frozen, and the fact that Plaintiff was occasionally served spoiled produce

did not substantially burden his practice of religion in violation of the First Amendment. 

(See ECF No. 68.)

Case 3:17-cv-02406-JLB-KSC Document 82 Filed 02/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

17-cv-02406-JLB-KSC

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

so he can then write his response to summary judgment dismissal[,] which he cannot do 

without his legal files.” (ECF No. 71 at 1.) Thus, it appears that Plaintiff also requests an 

extension of time to provide the Court with further arguments in support of reconsideration. 

In their opposition, Defendants analyze Plaintiff’s motion only with respect to his request 

for reconsideration and not with respect to his vague request for additional time to “write 

his response to summary judgment dismissal.” (See ECF No. 72.) 

To the extent Plaintiff’s motion is also a request for an extension of time to provide 

further arguments in support of reconsideration, the Court finds that no good cause exists

to grant Plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff states that he “needs additional time to recover all his 

legal files . . . so he can then write his response to summary judgment,” but Plaintiff does 

not argue that there is any legitimate basis for reconsideration that he could make only with 

the benefit of his “legal files.” Moreover, Plaintiff constructively filed the instant motion 

more than four months ago and has filed three motions for an extension of time to file a 

reply to Defendants’ opposition since. Plaintiff could have provided the Court with a basis 

for why he needed to supplement the instant motion during this time but did not do so. 

Additionally, Plaintiff constructively filed a Notice of Appeal on October 9, 2019, two days 

before he constructively filed the instant motion. (See ECF No. 73 at 1.) Thus, Plaintiff 

has made clear he plans to reargue his position before the appellate court, so additional—

and likely meritless—briefing will only delay that process. 

Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff is requesting additional time to craft further 

arguments in support of reconsideration, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 19, 2020

Case 3:17-cv-02406-JLB-KSC Document 82 Filed 02/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6