Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-01176/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-01176-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\03-1176-rec2 1 03cv1176

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAEK SANG YOON,

CDC #P-67861,

Civil No. 03-1176 IEG (CAB)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION 

PURSUANT TO 

FED.R.CIV.P. 59(e)

AND S.D. CAL. CIVLR 7.1(I) 

[Doc. No. 87-1]

vs.

W.C. WITTENBERG,

Defendant.

On June 13, 2003, Taek Sang Yoon (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently incarcerated

at the California Rehabilitation Center, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1983. In his original Complaint Plaintiff named Defendants Wittenberg, Giurbino, D.J.

DeGeus, and Galindo. On July 2, 2003, this Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that it failed to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief could be

granted as to Defendants Giurbino, D.J. DeGeus, and Galindo. See July 2, 2003 Order at 3-6.

Plaintiff was granted forty-five (45) days to file a First Amended Complaint in order to correct

the deficiencies of pleading noted in the Court’s Order. Id. at 6. 

////

////

Case 3:03-cv-01176-IEG-CAB Document 99 Filed 09/20/06 Page 1 of 5
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\03-1176-rec2 2 03cv1176

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on September 15, 2003 [Doc. No. 9].

Plaintiff later requested leave to file a Second Amended Complaint which was granted by the

Court on March 2, 2004 [Doc. No. 18]. Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)

on March 12, 2004 [Doc. No. 20]. The Court, once again, sua sponte screened Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint and found that Plaintiff failed to correct the deficiencies of pleading

identified as to Defendants Giurbino, DeGeus and Galindo. Accordingly, the Court dismissed

the claims against these Defendants without leave to amend. See April 20, 2004 Order at 4-7.

The Court further found that Plaintiff had failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim against

Defendant Wittenberg pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed these claims without leave

to amend. Id. at 6. Plaintiff was informed that he could proceed with his First Amendment

retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendant Wittenberg. Id. at 7.

Defendant Wittenberg then filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b). Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint must be dismissed because he failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies

before filing suit as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Court denied Defendant’s Motion

and found that Plaintiff had exhausted his available administrative remedies relying upon the

Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2005). See Apr. 7, 2005

Order at 6-7.

Defendant Wittenberg sought reconsideration of the Court’s April 7, 2005 Order in light

of the United States Supreme Court’s reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ngo v.

Woodford. See Woodford v. Ngo, __ U.S. __, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (2006). The Court found that the

Woodford decision was clearly an intervening change in controlling law and granted Defendant’s

Motion for Reconsideration. See Sept. 5, 2006 Order.

Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s September 5, 2006 Order. He claims

that the Court “overlooked” circumstantial evidence by failing to review the exhibits attached

to his original Complaint. See Pl.’s Mot. at 1. 

////

Motion for Reconsideration

Case 3:03-cv-01176-IEG-CAB Document 99 Filed 09/20/06 Page 2 of 5
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

 In fact, Plaintiff was informed of this Local Rule in the Court’s Order filed on July 2, 2003

[Doc. No. 2]. See July 2, 2003 Order at 6. 

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\03-1176-rec2 3 03cv1176

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) or Rule 60(b). See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489

U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir.

1994). In Osterneck, the Supreme Court stated that “a postjudgment motion will be considered

 a Rule 59(e) motion where it involves ‘reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a

decision on the merits.’” Id. at 174 (quoting White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Employ’t Sec.,

455 U.S. 445, 451 (1982)). Under Rule 59(e), “[r]econsideration 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 controlling law. There

may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration.” School Dist.

No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).

Plaintiff claims that the Court erred by failing to review the documents attached as

exhibits to Plaintiff’s original Complaint. However, Local Rule 15.1 specifically provides that

when a party amends their pleadings, the amended pleading must be “complete in itself without

reference to the superseded pleading.”1

 S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1. Moreover, this Local Rule

provides Plaintiff with the opportunity to request that the exhibits from his original Complaint

be removed and attached to his Second Amended Complaint. Id. Plaintiff never made such a

request.

Regardless, the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s original Complaint fail to defeat

Defendant’s preliminary showing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies

prior to filing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e and Woodford v. Ngo, __ U.S. __, 126 S.Ct. 2378

(2006). In Woodford, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Prison Litigation Reform Act

requires a prisoner to “properly” exhaust any available administrative remedies before

challenging prison conditions in federal court. See Woodford, 126 S.Ct. at 2380. The Supreme

Court found that “[proper exhaustion] means . . . a prisoner must complete the administrative

Case 3:03-cv-01176-IEG-CAB Document 99 Filed 09/20/06 Page 3 of 5
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\03-1176-rec2 4 03cv1176

review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a

precondition to bringing suit in federal court.” Id. 

The administrative appeal system for inmates in the California prison system is described

in Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. “Any inmate or parolee under the [California

Department of Corrections’] jurisdiction may appeal any departmental decision, action,

condition or policy perceived by those individuals as adversely affecting their welfare.” CAL.

CODE REGS. tit. 15 § 3084.1(a). In order to exhaust administrative remedies, a prisoner must

first attempt to informally resolve the problem with the staff member involved in the action or

decision being appealed.” Id., § 3084.5(a). If unsuccessful, the prisoner must then submit a

formal appeal on an inmate appeal from (a “CDC 602”) to the institution’s Appeals Coordinator

or Appeals Office. Id. § 3084.5(b). If the prisoner is again unsuccessful, he or she must submit

a formal appeal for second level review, id. § 3084.5(c), which is conducted by the institution

head or designee. Id. § 3084.5(e)(1). The third or “Director’s Level” of review “shall be final

and exhausts all administrative remedies available in the Department [of Corrections.]” See Cal.

Dep’t. of Corrections Operations Manual, § 54100.11, “Levels of Review;” see also Barry v.

Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997); Irvin v. Zamora, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1125, 1129

(S.D. Cal. 2001).

Plaintiff offered no evidence to contradict the Defendant’s showing that Plaintiff failed

to properly exhaust his administrative grievances prior to bring this lawsuit. Plaintiff continues

to insist, and it may be true, that he filed an initial grievance at the first level of review.

However, Woodford now makes clear that a prisoner must continue through the available

administrative grievance procedures until the matter is resolved. Here, Plaintiff continues to

argue that he did file an administrative grievance at the first level. See Pl.’s Motion for

Reconsideration at 1-4. However, Plaintiff does not explain why he waited more than a year to

follow up on the status of his initial grievance. There is no evidence before this Court, that

Plaintiff continued to properly exhaust his administrative grievance regarding his claims against

Defendant Wittenberg. Accordingly, based on the record before this Court, Plaintiff did not

properly exhaust his administrative remedies as required by Woodford.

////

Case 3:03-cv-01176-IEG-CAB Document 99 Filed 09/20/06 Page 4 of 5
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\03-1176-rec2 5 03cv1176

Thus, without more, and because reconsideration is not warranted merely because

Plaintiff is unhappy with the judgment, frustrated by the Court’s application of the facts to

binding precedent or because he disagrees with its ultimate decision, Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration must be DENIED. See 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller Federal

Practice & Procedure 2d § 2858 (citing Edwards v. Velvac, Inc., 19 F.R.D. 504, 507 (D.C. Wis.

1956)). 

Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration [Doc. No. 98-1] is DENIED. 

DATED: September 20, 2006

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:03-cv-01176-IEG-CAB Document 99 Filed 09/20/06 Page 5 of 5