Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986-36/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VALENTINE UNDERWOOD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

M. NORTHCUTT, et al.,

Defendants

Case No. 1:08 cv 00986 GSA PC

ORDER RE PLAINITFF’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

(ECF NO. 154)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration of the March 26, 2015, order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment. 

The motion for summary judgment addressed Plaintiff’s claims of excessive force and 

retaliation against Defendants Northcutt and Martin. Summary Judgment was granted in 

Defendants’ favor on the retaliation claim and denied on the excessive force claim. Plaintiff 

alleges that he was assaulted On November 21, 2006, in retaliation for an inmate appeal he filed 

the previous day and that Defendant Northcutt confiscated his mail in retaliation for the 

November 21, 2006, assault. On February 4, 2007, Plaintiff filed an inmate appeal after having 

his incoming and outgoing mail disappear, and after finding that Defendant Northcutt had been 

reassigned to the mailroom after the November 21, 2006, incident.

Summary judgment was denied on the excessive force claim on the ground that although 

Defendants presented evidence that the initial use of force (the basis for Plaintiff’s retaliation 

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 155 Filed 07/10/15 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 2

claim) was used to maintain order or restore discipline, Defendants used force on Plaintiff once 

he was subdued. The Court found that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the initial 

use of pepper-spray was provoked. There was no evidence, however, that the use of force was 

motivated by the filing of an inmate grievance. The Court also found that Defendants submitted 

evidence that established that they had no involvement in the handling of Plaintiff’s mail.

Rule 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 quotation marks and citation omitted). The 

moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . .” Id. 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local 

Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to 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.”

“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.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 

Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009)(internal quotation marks 

and citations omitted), and ‘[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . of that which was already 

considered by the Court in rendering its decision,: U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 

2d 111, 1131 (E. D. Cal. 2001). 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. 646, 665 (E. D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in 

part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Plaintiff argues that there is evidence that, just prior to the use of force, he advised 

Defendants that he had spoken with Lt. Whitehead and, therefore, Defendants were aware of the 

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 155 Filed 07/10/15 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 3

grievance. Taking that fact as true, Plaintiff has not come forward with evidence of a triable 

issue of fact as to whether force was used in retaliation for filing a grievance. The fact that 

Defendants were aware of the grievance does not establish evidence of retaliation. Plaintiff also 

argues that there are affidavits of other inmates that he submitted in opposition to the motion for 

summary judgment indicating that they had problems with their mail. Plaintiff argues that his 

evidence establishes that C/O Northcutt was assigned to the mailroom during the time Plaintiff 

had problems with his mail. Such evidence does not create a triable issue of fact as to whether 

Northcutt interfered with Plaintiff’s mail in retaliation for the filing of an inmate grievance. 

Northcutt’s declaration establishes that he was assigned to the mailroom, but did not handle any 

of Plaintiff’s mail. 

Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature in his motion for 

reconsideration to induce the Court to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, the motion for 

reconsideration should be denied. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 

motion for reconsideration of the order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2015 

/s/ Gary S. Austin 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 155 Filed 07/10/15 Page 3 of 3