Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-01043/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-01043-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES MCCURDY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. RIVERO, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 17-01043 BLF (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 108, 110) 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”) and Pelican Bay 

State Prison (“PBSP”). The Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and 

motion to dismiss, concluding Plaintiff had only exhausted two claims and that he could 

only proceed with one of them. (Docket No. 104.) After Plaintiff filed notice that he 

wished to proceed on the claim against Defendant Deal, the Court ordered briefing on the 

matter. (Docket No. 107.) Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9. (Docket Nos. 108, 110.) Defendant filed an 

opposition, (Docket No. 111), and Plaintiff filed a reply, (Docket No. 116). 

Where the court’s ruling has not resulted in a final judgment or order, 

reconsideration of the ruling may be sought under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Case 5:17-cv-01043-BLF Document 119 Filed 02/05/19 Page 1 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Procedure, which provides that any order which does not terminate the action is subject to 

revision at any time before the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).1

 In the 

Northern District of California, no motion for reconsideration may be brought without 

leave of court. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, the moving party must 

specifically show: (1) that at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact 

or law exists from that which was presented to the court before entry of the interlocutory 

order for which the reconsideration is sought, and that in the exercise of reasonable 

diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time 

of the interlocutory order; or (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law 

occurring after the time of such order; or (3) a manifest failure by the court to consider 

material facts which were presented to the court before such interlocutory order. See Civil 

L.R. 7-9(b). 

Plaintiff has set forth no basis for the Court to grant leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9. (Docket No. 111 at 2.) Plaintiff asserts that there 

are other defendants that were involved during the exhaustion of his claim against 

Defendant Deal who should be included in this action, and that the Court should also 

afford him an opportunity to file a second amended complaint. (Docket No. 110 at 2-3.) 

However, Plaintiff has failed to show that there has been a material difference in fact or 

law from that which was presented to the Court before it granted Defendants’ summary 

judgment which in the exercise of reasonable diligence he did not know when opposing 

Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff asserts in reply that he has identified “plenty of newly 

discovered evidence and material fact.” (Reply at 2.) However, this newly discovered 

evidence could have been discovered sooner in the exercise of reasonable diligence and 

 

1 “Reconsideration 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.” School Dist. No. 1J v. 

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

Case 5:17-cv-01043-BLF Document 119 Filed 02/05/19 Page 2 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

argued in his opposition. (Id. at 3-6.) Nor does Plaintiff argue the emergence of new 

material facts or a change of law that occurred after the court order. Lastly, there was no 

manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts which were presented before the 

court order. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b). Accordingly, the motion for leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration is DENIED. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 108 and 110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order Denying Recon. 

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.17\01043McCurdy_recon 

Case 5:17-cv-01043-BLF Document 119 Filed 02/05/19 Page 3 of 3