Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01324/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01324-6/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\L\08cv1324-Deny Reconsideration.wpd, 11169 -1- 08cv1324 L (WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTER BURNETT,

CDCR #V-35245,

Civil No. 08cv1324 L (WVG)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

COURT TO RECONSIDER

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION 

[Doc No. 79]

vs.

DUGAN; KINJI L. HAWTHORNE;

BROWN; FRAZE; D. KHATRI;

VICTOR ALMAGER; BARRERAS,

Defendants.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider the Court’s October 9,

2009 granting Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve the Court’s May 6, 2009 Order granting a

preliminary injunction [Doc. No 79].

Ester Burnett (“Plaintiff”), is a prisoner proceeding in pro se and in forma pauperis

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Among the allegations in his Complaint, Plaintiff claims that

prison officials at California State Prison, Centinela (“CEN”) have violated his Eighth

Amendment rights by failing to provide him with adequate medical care and failing to

accommodate his disability. The Court sua sponte screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and initially

dismissed it for failing to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief could be granted. (See Sept.

Case 3:08-cv-01324-L-WVG Document 84 Filed 11/16/09 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

1

 However, Local Rule 7.1(i) does permit motions for reconsideration. Under Local Rule

7.1(i)(1), a party may apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition

for any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part....”S.D.

CAL. CIVLR 7.1(i). The party seeking reconsideration must show “what new or different facts and

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.”

Id. Local Rule 7.1(i)(2), however, only permits motions for re consideration within “30 days of the

entry of the ruling.” 

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\08cv1324-Deny Reconsideration.wpd, 11169 -2- 08cv1324 L (WVG)

29, 2008 Order at 6-7.) Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on November 24,

2008 [Doc. No. 11]. The Court once again screened Plaintiff’s FAC and found that the

allegations in Plaintiff’s FAC survived the sua sponte screening process required by 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). (See Dec. 10, 2008 Order at 2.) The Court further found that

Plaintiff was entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. (Id.)

On March 19, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 25]. The Court deemed Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for

preliminary injunction and issued a briefing schedule. Defendants were directed to file a

response to Plaintiff’s Motion. (See Mar. 23, 2009 Order at 1.) Defendants’ filed their response

to Plaintiff’s Motion on April 13, 2009 [Doc. No. 29]. The Court permitted Plaintiff to file a

response to Defendants’ Opposition [Doc. Nos. 31, 33]. 

The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief and ordered Defendants to

“comply with the Medical Directions issued by Samuel Ko, M.D. on June 21, 2009 directing

Plaintiff to be issued a single bed in a single cell without any overhead bunk or any overhead

obstruction due to Plaintiff’s medical condition.” See May 6, 2009 Order at 8. 

Defendants then filed a Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction. The Court granted

Defendants’ Motion on October 9, 2009. Plaintiff has now filed a Motion for Reconsideration

of the Court’s Order. 

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

A. Standard of Review

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for

reconsideration.1

 However, a motion for reconsideration may be construed as a motion to alter

Case 3:08-cv-01324-L-WVG Document 84 Filed 11/16/09 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

2

 Rule 59(e) motions must be filed “no later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.”

FED.R.CIV.P. 59(e). Under Rule 60(b), however, a motion for “relief from judgment or order” may be

filed within a “reasonable time,” but usually must be filed “not more than one year after the judgment,

order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b). Reconsideration may be granted in

the case of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence;

or (3) fraud; or if (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) for any other

reason justifies relief. FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b). 

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\08cv1324-Deny Reconsideration.wpd, 11169 -3- 08cv1324 L (WVG)

or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b).2 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).

The preliminary injunction was initially issued out of concerns that Defendants were

disregarding the instructions of Plaintiff’s medical doctors. When Plaintiff filed his original

Motion for Preliminary Injunction, he attached two medical “chronos” to his Motion that were

dated January 21, 2009 and signed by Samuel Ko, M.D. (See Pl.’s Mot. for Pre. Inj,. Doc. No.

25, Exhibit “A.”) These chronos stated “[Plaintiff] is to be in a single cell bed in General

Population because of a medical condition,” and “[Plaintiff] requires a medical accommodation

for single bed without overhead bunk or any overhead obstruction due to medical condition.”

(Id.) In addition, Plaintiff attached a “Comprehensive Accommodation Chrono” which appears

to be signed by a “Davenport,” dated February 6, 2009 with the handwritten notes “single bunk -

no overhead objections - i.e. upper bunk.” (See Id., Exhibit “B.”) Plaintiff alleged in his Motion

that these chronos were issued following the medical recommendations of Dr. Calvin who was

the Doctor who performed Plaintiff’s back surgery. 

Defendants later filed a Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction. When they filed

this Motion, they included the Declaration of Dr. Calvin, whom they consulted, to determine the

Case 3:08-cv-01324-L-WVG Document 84 Filed 11/16/09 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\L\08cv1324-Deny Reconsideration.wpd, 11169 -4- 08cv1324 L (WVG)

appropriate housing and accommodations for Plaintiff. Dr. Calvin opined that Plaintiff’s

housing situation at the time his declaration was filed was “sufficient.” See Calvin Decl. 5(a)-

(d), Doc. No. 49-3. One of the issues for Plaintiff was the need to be housed in a cell without

“any overhead obstruction.” Id. Dr. Calvin opined that as long as Plaintiff was housed under

the conditions as described to him by prison officials, these conditions would not cause “any risk

of irreparable physical harm.” Id. at ¶ 5(d).

In the current Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff claims that prison officials at Pleasant

Valley State Prison are “considering putting the upper bunk back in Plaintiff’s cell.” See Pl.’s

Mot. at 1. While this is too speculative for the Court to reach the conclusion that the preliminary

injunction should be reinstated, the Court reminds Defendants to be mindful of the facts they

submitted in support of their Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction. If Plaintiff is able

to demonstrate facts at a later date which show that he is being housed under conditions that

differ from those that Defendants represented to the Court and were prescribed by Dr. Calvin,

the Court will permit Plaintiff to file another Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The previous

injunction was dissolved based on representations that Defendants were complying, and would

continue to comply, with the medical recommendations of the Doctors treating Plaintiff. At this

time, there are insufficient facts in Plaintiff’s Motion by which the Court could find that

Defendants are not complying the Dr. Calvin’s housing recommendations.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has provided no newly discovered evidence, has failed to show

clear error or that the Court rendered a manifestly unjust decision, and has further failed to

identify any intervening changes in controlling law that would demand reconsideration of the

Court’s Order. School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. 

III. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. [Doc. No.

79]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 16, 2009

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01324-L-WVG Document 84 Filed 11/16/09 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\L\08cv1324-Deny Reconsideration.wpd, 11169 -5- 08cv1324 L (WVG)

COPY TO:

HON. WILLIAM V. GALLO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-01324-L-WVG Document 84 Filed 11/16/09 Page 5 of 5