Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01712/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01712-13/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEWART MANAGO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1712 FCD DAD P

vs.

M. KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________/

On August 29, 2007, defendants filed a request for

reconsideration of this court’s order filed August 17, 2007,

granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, in part, on the ground

that plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies as

to his first and second claims for relief, and denying

defendants’ motion to dismiss as to plaintiff’s third claim for

relief. The court found that plaintiff advanced a new argument

in his objections that were not raised in defendants’ motion to

dismiss and thus, not addressed by the magistrate judge in his

Findings and Recommendations. Specifically, plaintiff argued

that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical

Case 2:04-cv-01712-FCD-DAD Document 76 Filed 08/31/07 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

needs. The court also noted that plaintiff’s allegations

regarding his third claim for relief are vague and not well pled. 

Pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(k), a party seeking

reconsideration of the court’s ruling on a motion must set forth

the material facts and circumstances surrounding each motion,

including “what new or different facts or circumstances are

claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon prior

motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(k)(3). Upon review of

defendants’ objections, defendants have failed to set forth facts

demonstrating that they had moved to dismiss plaintiff’s vaguely

pled claim relating to deliberate indifference to his medical

care. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration,

this court’s order, filed August 17, 2007, is affirmed. The

magistrate judge is directed to allow plaintiff leave to file a

Third Amended Complaint to allege with greater specificity the

grounds for his third claim for relief. Defendants may then

reassert any applicable defenses, including failure to exhaust

administrative remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: August 31, 2007

Case 2:04-cv-01712-FCD-DAD Document 76 Filed 08/31/07 Page 2 of 2