Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01221/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01221-7/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

WILLIAM DOUGLAS MELLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. R. MARTINEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01221-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 36)

Plaintiff William Douglas Mello is a state prisoner who was proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil action. On January 8, 2010, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss

and dismissed this action, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust in compliance with 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a). On January 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order

for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to

prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. 

Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation

omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control

. . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in

relevant part, that Plaintiff 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,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” 

///

1

Case 1:06-cv-01221-SMS Document 39 Filed 06/10/10 Page 1 of 3
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

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

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if

there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or

present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the

litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.

2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

Prisoners are required to exhaust the available administrative remedy process prior to filing

suit in federal court, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 524, 122 S.Ct. 983 (2002); McKinney v. Carey,

311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002), and in doing so, they must comply with the procedural

rules governing the remedy process. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (2006);

Marella v. Terhune, 562 F.3d 983, 985 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court found that Plaintiff did not submit

any evidence in support of his argument that he exhausted. 

As the Court explained, Plaintiff’s attempt to submit an appeal directly to the Director’s

Level of review did not suffice because Plaintiff was required to first obtain a second-level review,

which he failed to do and which led to the rejection of the appeal. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 §§ 3084.2,

3084.5 (2010). Plaintiff’s argument that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

failed to make Defendants available did not suffice to excuse his failure to exhaust because Plaintiff

was not required to speak with or otherwise have contact with Defendants in order to file an appeal. 

Finally, Plaintiff’s attempts to exhaust in 2009 did not suffice because exhaustion must occur before

suit is filed. Porter, 435 U.S. at 524; McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration sets forth no evidence demonstrating that prior to filing

suit, he complied with section 1997e(a) by filing an inmate appeal in accordance with the governing

regulations and exhausting the appeals process. Plaintiff’s mere disagreement with the Court’s 

///

///

///

///

///

2

Case 1:06-cv-01221-SMS Document 39 Filed 06/10/10 Page 2 of 3
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

decision is not grounds for reconsideration. Plaintiff did not meet his burden as the party moving

for reconsideration, and his motion is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:06-cv-01221-SMS Document 39 Filed 06/10/10 Page 3 of 3