Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02193/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02193-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

Under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g)(2), no response to a motion for

reconsideration shall be filed unless ordered by the Court.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas Stewart, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2193-PHX-RCB-LOA

ORDER

On April 21, 2011, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action and

entered Judgment against Plaintiff (Docs. 50-51). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for

Extension of Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration and Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration (Docs. 52-53). Because Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is timely

filed, the Court will deny as moot the motion for extension of time. 

The Court did not direct Defendants to file a response to the motion for

reconsideration and the Court will deny it.1

I. Background

Plaintiff’s claim stemmed from his medical treatment at the Arizona Department of

Corrections (Doc. 27). Plaintiff named seven ADC employees and alleged that Defendants

were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs (id. at 1d-1g). 

Defendants Barcklay, Currans, Franco, and Ryan moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second

Case 2:09-cv-02193-RCB Document 60 Filed 05/25/11 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 -

Amended Complaint on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies

prior to filing this lawsuit (Doc. 43). The Court granted the motion, determining that

Plaintiff failed to establish that he completed the ADC’s grievance procedure as to any of the

deliberate indifference allegations presented in his Second Amended Complaint or that he

was prevented from doing so (Doc. 50 at 6-7). 

II. Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order dismissing this action because he

successfully completed the ADC’s grievance process on April 21, 2011 (Doc. 53). 

 A. Legal Standard

 The court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment under Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 59(e) and 60. A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be made within 28

days of entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (2010). Here, judgment was entered on

April 21, 2011, and the present motion was signed and thus filed on May 11, 2011 (Doc. 53).

The motion is therefore timely under Rule 59(e) and should be considered under that rule as

opposed to Rule 60(b). Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Contr. Corp., 248 F.3d

892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (“a motion for reconsideration is treated as a motion to alter or

amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) if it is filed within” the

time provided under the rule). 

A Rule 59(e) motion is appropriate “if the district court: (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,

or (3) if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Circuit City Stores, Inc. v.

Mantor, 417 F.3d 1060, 1064 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Sch. Dist. No 1J, Multnomah County

v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F .3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993)).

B. Analysis

Plaintiff presents what he describes as new evidence demonstrating that he did, in fact,

exhaust the ADC’s grievance procedure as to his deliberate indifference claims (Doc. 53 at

4). Specifically, Plaintiff claims that on April 21, 2011, Plaintiff successfully completed the

ADC’s grievance procedure by fully exhausting Grievance Number Y09-21-D11 (id., Ex.

Case 2:09-cv-02193-RCB Document 60 Filed 05/25/11 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 -

1). While Plaintiff appears to contend that newly discovered evidence warrants

reconsideration of the Court’s Order dismissing this action for failure to exhaust, Plaintiff’s

motion must be denied. Even assuming Plaintiff did fully exhaust his deliberate indifference

claims on April 21, 2011, such action would not constitute proper exhaustion because the

Prison Litigation Reform Act mandates that an inmate exhaust remedies before filing a

lawsuit invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983; exhausting remedies during the course of the lawsuit

does not comply with the requirement. Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1050-51 (9th

Cir. 2006); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). The statute itself

states that “[n]o action shall be brought . . . until [the prisoner’s] administrative remedies 

. . . are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

Thus, even crediting the allegations in his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff failed

to properly exhaust his claims. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 92 (2006); see also

Holcomb v. Fleeman, 2007 WL 3231588, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (inmate’s concession that

he did not obtain a Director’s level decision until after the lawsuit was filed “is fatal to his

action”) (citing Woodford, 548 U.S. at 92; McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201). 

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff alleges that he has presented new evidence

demonstrating that he was prevented from exhausting his administrative remedies prior to

filing this lawsuit, the Court finds this argument wholly unpersuasive because there is no

additional evidence submitted with the motion for reconsideration that establishes that

Plaintiff was prevented in any way from exhausting his administrative remedies. For these

reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.

III. In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal

Plaintiff has already filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s April 21, 2011 Judgment

(Doc. 54). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has referred Plaintiff’s appeal to this Court

to determine whether Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should continue or whether

Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. 

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the

trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” “Not taken in good faith”

Case 2:09-cv-02193-RCB Document 60 Filed 05/25/11 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 -

means “frivolous.” See Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 674-75 (1958); Gardner v.

Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 551 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant permitted to proceed IFP on

appeal only if appeal would not be frivolous). 

The Court concludes that an appeal from the Order dismissing this action would

be frivolous because Plaintiff presented nothing to rebut Defendants’ evidence of

nonexhaustion. In its Order, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to submit any documentary

evidence to show that he exhausted his administrative remedies for any of his deliberate

indifference allegations and, similarly, he failed to allege any specific facts regarding his

attempts to file grievances (Doc. 50 at 6). The Court therefore determined that Plaintiff could

not overcome Defendants’ specific evidence that there was no record of any attempt to

exhaust remedies (id.). 

Accordingly, this Order certifies that Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Reconsideration

(Doc. 52) is denied as moot. 

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 53) is denied. 

(3) Plaintiff’s appeal from this Court’s final judgment is not taken in good faith

and Plaintiff is not entitled to in forma pauperis status on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(3); Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A).

(4) The Clerk of Court must send a copy of this Order to the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals referencing case number 11-16261. 

DATED this 25th day of May, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-02193-RCB Document 60 Filed 05/25/11 Page 4 of 4