Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00054/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00054-12/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS R. ELLINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:09-CV-00054-OWW-DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF NO. 67)

Plaintiff Marcus R. Ellington (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in

the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended

complaint against Defendants Clark, Lunes, Reynoso, Polk, Diaz,

and Jones for violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion entitled

“Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing bu U.S. District Jukdge as to

whether or not the plaintiff stated a cause of action against the

director.” The Court construes this as a motion for

reconsideration of the Court’s June 28, 2010 Order. (ECF No.

65.)

1

Case 1:09-cv-00054-OWW -DLB Document 69 Filed 07/29/10 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

The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior

order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994);

United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir.

1992). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and

are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in

their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood

Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-6 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor is

reconsideration to be used to ask the court to rethink what it

has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d

1112, 1116 (D. Ariz.1998). “A party seeking reconsideration must

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

recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court

before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving

party’s burden.” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d

1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).

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 (9th Cir.

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 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 (9th Cir.

1987). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule

230(j) requires a party to show the “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.”

2

Case 1:09-cv-00054-OWW -DLB Document 69 Filed 07/29/10 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

Plaintiff contends that he stated a cause of action against

the Director of the CDCR. An examination of Plaintiff’s second

amended complaint, the operative pleading in this action,

indicates that Plaintiff failed to name the Director of the CDCR

as a defendant. Plaintiff was warned that an amended complaint

supercedes a prior complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d

1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

(9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without

reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint does not name the Director

as a defendant.

Even if Plaintiff had named the Director as a defendant,

Plaintiff would still fail to state a claim. Plaintiff contends

that merely by appealing Defendants’ alleged constitutional

violation to the Director’s level, the Director becomes liable. 

Plaintiff attempts to infer that the Director knew of and

consented to the other Defendants’ alleged constitutional

violations. First, it is unclear whether the Director personally

reviewed Plaintiff’s grievances, and thus it is unclear whether

the Director even had knowledge. Second, actions in reviewing an

inmate grievance alone are not sufficient to demonstrate

liability under § 1983. “Ruling against a prisoner on an

administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the

violation.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007). 

For a supervisory defendant to be liable, there must be either

personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection between

the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional

violation. Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 915 (9th Cir. 2001)

3

Case 1:09-cv-00054-OWW -DLB Document 69 Filed 07/29/10 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

(per curiam) (citing Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d

1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc)).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed

July 22, 2010, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 1:09-cv-00054-OWW -DLB Document 69 Filed 07/29/10 Page 4 of 4