Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01444/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01444-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL A. SPARKMAN ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01444-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION 

(ECF No. 23)

CASE TO REMAIN CLOSED

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

On July 29, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and a recommendation to 

deny Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF 

No. 24.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has 

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

Court finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by 

proper analysis. Plaintiff filed four pleadings that failed to state a claim before the Court 

Case 1:12-cv-01444-AWI-MJS Document 25 Filed 03/31/15 Page 1 of 2
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

determined that further leave to amend would be futile and would be denied. (See ECF 

Nos. 1, 7, 14, 17.) The Magistrate Judge noted that these pleadings, although legally 

insufficient, were nonetheless coherent and intelligently presented. Plaintiff now objects 

that the deficiencies in his complaints are attributable to his mental health issues and 

cognitive disorders. However, as the Magistrate Judge noted, there is nothing in the 

pleadings to indicate that facts capable of stating a cause of action exist. Significantly, 

the reconsideration motion does not indicate what additional facts Plaintiff could allege to 

cure the deficiencies identified in the four prior complaints. Additionally, Plaintiff does 

not adequately address why he waited over a year to file the reconsideration motion. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (parties have one year to file motions under Rules 60(b)(1)-

(3) and have a “reasonable time” to file motions under Rules 60(b)(4)-(6)). Although 

Plaintiff indicates that he suffered from psychiatric/mental infirmities around the time of 

the March 2013 Findings and Recommendation, information attached to Plaintiff’s 

objections do not appear to indicate the problems were continuing in June, July, and 

August of 2013.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations, filed July 29, 2014

(ECF No. 23), in full;

2. Plaintiff’s June 27, 2014 motion to vacate the order adopting the findings 

and recommendations (ECF No. 21), which the Court construes as a 

motion for reconsideration, is DENIED; and

3. The action shall remain closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01444-AWI-MJS Document 25 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 2