Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02335/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02335-7/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

Order Addressing Pending Motions

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.07\Calloway335misc4.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WILSON CALLOWAY, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-2335 RMW (PR)

ORDER ADDRESSING

PENDING MOTIONS

(Docket Nos. 92, 95, 98, 102,

105, 106)

On April 30, 2007, plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 18, 2007, the court partially dismissed the

complaint and ordered the cognizable claims served upon named defendants. (Docket no. 10.) 

On September 16, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss or to quash service. (Docket no.

33.) After briefing, on April 15, 2009, the court ordered the complaint dismissed but granted

plaintiff leave to amend. (Docket no. 60.) On May 13, 2009, plaintiff filed an amended

complaint. (Docket no. 62.) On September 8, 2009, the court partially dismissed the amended

complaint and ordered the cognizable claims served upon the remaining defendant. (Docket no.

81.) The defendant Dr. Sinnaco was served on September 22, 2009. On October 23, 2009,

defendant Sinnaco filed a motion for summary judgment which has been submitted for decision

and will be addressed in a separate order. (Docket no. 93.)

Here, the court addresses the following motions: (1) plaintiff’s motion to compel service

*E-FILED - 3/24/10*

Case 5:07-cv-02335-RMW Document 122 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 6
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

Order Addressing Pending Motions

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.07\Calloway335misc4.wpd 2

of the summons and complaint on B. Irwin and to reinstate dismissed defendants; (2) plaintiff’s

motion for additional time to respond to defendant’s motion for summary judgment; (3)

plaintiff’s motion to require compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a); (4) plaintiff’s request to file a

second amended complaint; (5) plaintiff’s motions to alter or amend judgment dismissing J.

Tilton and Nurse Irwin from the amended complaint; (6) plaintiff’s motion to compel service of

summons and complaint on Tilton, Cury, Chudy, Friedman, Sinnaco, and Nurse Irwin; (7)

plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel; and (8) defendant’s request for a stay pending

a ruling on the motion for summary judgment.

A. Motion to compel service and to reinstate dismissed defendants

 On September 8, 2009, the court dismissed all defendants but Dr. Sinnaco from this

action. On October 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a “motion to compel service of the summon [sic] and

complaint on B. Irwin and to reinstate dismissed defendants to the complaint.” In the motion,

plaintiff states that he has located Nurse B. Irwin, a previously named defendant whom the court

subsequently dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff requests that

the court reconsider its dismissal of Nurse B. Irwin.

Where, as here, 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

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

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;

Case 5:07-cv-02335-RMW Document 122 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 6
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

Order Addressing Pending Motions

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.07\Calloway335misc4.wpd 3

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).

Here, on February 12, 2009, the court issued an order informing plaintiff that his

complaint had been pending for more than 120 days and, absent a showing of good cause,

unserved defendant Nurse B. Irwin would be dismissed unless plaintiff could provide accurate

and current location information within thirty days so that the Marshal could serve her. 

Although plaintiff filed a variety of motions after that order, none provided accurate or current

location information for Nurse B. Irwin. On September 8, 2009, after receiving no information

regarding Nurse Irwin, the court dismissed Nurse B. Irwin pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(m). 

In plaintiff’s present motion, filed October 20, 2009 -- over six months after the court’s

order warning plaintiff that Nurse Irwin would be dismissed unless he provided proper

identifying information -- plaintiff indicates that he was informed of Nurse Irwin’s whereabouts

and requests this court to reinstate her as a defendant. However, Rule 4(m) requires dismissal

for an untimely service unless plaintiff can demonstrate good cause for the failure. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(m). Rule 4(m) was designed to encourage diligent prosecution of lawsuits. See

Townsel v. County of Contra Costa, 820 F.2d 319, 321 (9th Cir. 1987). This action has been

pending for nearly three years. Here, plaintiff has not demonstrated diligence nor good cause for

his failure to locate Nurse B. Irwin within the requisite time. See id. The court finds that

plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements set forth above for this court to reconsider its earlier

ruling. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Civil L.R. 7-9(a). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

B. Motion for additional time

On October 30, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for additional time to respond to

defendant’s motion for summary judgment. However, plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion

for summary judgment on November 13, 2009. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as

moot.

Case 5:07-cv-02335-RMW Document 122 Filed 03/24/10 Page 3 of 6
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

Order Addressing Pending Motions

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.07\Calloway335misc4.wpd 4

 ///

C. Motion to require compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)

Plaintiff filed a motion to require defendant to comply with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(a), which mandates parties to provide information for initial disclosure. In support

this motion, plaintiff states that he needs the certain information in order to serve defendant Dr.

Sinnaco. He requests telephone, address, and employment information for both Dr. Sinnaco and

Nurse Irwin. However, Dr. Sinnaco has already been served. Further, because plaintiff filed this

action pro se and is in custody, Rule 26(a) is not applicable to plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(1)(B)(iv). Accordingly, this motion is DENIED.

D. Request to file a second amended complaint

On December 3, 2009, the court received an amended complaint from plaintiff. The

court construes this amended complaint as a request to file a second amended complaint. A

review of the second amended complaint demonstrates that it is substantively the same as

plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed May 13, 2009 -- the operative complaint in this action. As

such, plaintiff’s request to file a second amended complaint is DENIED.

E. Motions to alter or amend judgment dismissing J. Tilton and Nurse Irwin

Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment dismissing Tilton and Irwin is

construed as a motion to reconsider the court’s previous dismissal. Plaintiff claims that Tilton

knew or should have known that the prison was not equipped for colonoscopy exams. Without

more, this does not state a constitutional violation. See Roberts v. Spalding, 783 F.2d 867, 872

(9th Cir. 1986) (“The fact that a prison infirmary is systematically substandard does not preclude

instances of constitutionally sufficient care”). 

In the court’s order of service, it found that, liberal construed, the plaintiff sufficiently

alleged that defendant Sinnaco had substantially delayed diagnosis and treatment of colitis. In

that same amended complaint, plaintiff claimed that Tilton “directly or indirectly” participated in

denying medical care, denied access to outside medical care, “knew or should have known” that

the prison contracted out colonoscopy exams to outside facilities and “knew or should have

known” that the prison was not equipped for colonoscopy exams. (Am. Complaint, p. 9.) As

Case 5:07-cv-02335-RMW Document 122 Filed 03/24/10 Page 4 of 6
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

Order Addressing Pending Motions

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.07\Calloway335misc4.wpd 5

stated in court’s previous order dismissing defendant Tilton from this action: Omitting the

conclusory allegations from plaintiff’s amended complaint, plaintiff’s claims against Tilton does

not include any factual allegation sufficient to plausibly suggest that he “participated in or

directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v.

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1952 (2009).

Plaintiff’s request to alter or amend the judgment dismissing Nurse Irwin is wholly

unsupported. As stated above, “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.

11 v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). In the Northern District of California, no

motion for reconsideration may be brought without leave of court. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). 

Plaintiff does not satisfy these requirements. Accordingly, the motions to alter or amend are

DENIED.

F. Motion to compel service of summons and complaint

Plaintiff moves to compel service of the summons and amended complaint on Tilton,

Cury, Chudy, Friedman, Sinnaco, and Nurse Irwin. However, the only remaining defendant in

this action is Dr. Sinnaco. Dr. Sinnaco was served on September 22, 2009. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as moot.

G. Motion for appointment of counsel

On September 23, 2009, plaintiff filed a letter with the court, which this court partially

construed as a motion for appointment of counsel. On September 30, 2009, the court denied

plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel for want of exceptional circumstances. See Rand

v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). The court informed plaintiff that, should the

circumstances of the case warrant appointment of counsel, the court would sua sponte appoint

one to represent plaintiff. On December 28, 2009, plaintiff filed another motion for appointment

of counsel. Still, no exceptional circumstances appear in this case. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

motion is DENIED.

H. Request for a stay pending a ruling on the motion for summary judgment

Case 5:07-cv-02335-RMW Document 122 Filed 03/24/10 Page 5 of 6
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

Order Addressing Pending Motions

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.07\Calloway335misc4.wpd 6

Defendant requests that the court sanction plaintiff for violating L. R. 7-9(d), which

prohibits parties from making repetitive motions and arguments without leave of court. 

Defendant proposes that a stay on any further motions by plaintiff until the court rules on

defendant’s motion for summary judgment would suffice as an appropriate sanction. A review

of the court’s docket reveals that plaintiff has filed at least 9 motions in the last three months,

most of which are indeed substantively repetitive and asks the court to reconsider its prior

orders. At this time, court DENIES without prejudice defendant’s request to sanction plaintiff. 

However, plaintiff is cautioned that the court will not look favorably upon any future

motions essentially asking it to reconsider its previous orders unless plaintiff is granted leave to

do so. Should plaintiff continue to file such motions without abiding by the rules, see Fed. R.

Civ. P. 54(b); Civil L.R. 7-9(a), the court will impose the sanction as requested by defendant.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to compel service of the summons and complaint on B. Irwin and to

reinstate dismissed defendants is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion for additional time to respond to

defendant’s motion for summary judgment DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s motion to require

compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request to file a second amended

complaint is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motions to alter or amend judgment dismissing J. Tilton and

Nurse Irwin from the amended complaint are DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion to compel service of

summons and complaint on Tilton, Cury, Chudy, Friedman, Sinnaco, and Nurse Irwin are

DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. Defendant’s

request for a stay pending a ruling on the motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

This order terminates docket numbers 92, 95, 98, 102, 105, and 106.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _________________ RONALD M. WHYTE

 United States District Judge

3/23/10

Case 5:07-cv-02335-RMW Document 122 Filed 03/24/10 Page 6 of 6