Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00759/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00759-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS JOHN CARLSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. HANSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF SCREENING 

ORDER, WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. 45)

Plaintiff Thomas John Carlson (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 30, 2013. This 

action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed May 4, 2012, against 

Defendants Worth, Newton, Rodrequez, Alavara, Vega, Monroy, Angulo, Madrid, and O=Brian 

(“Defendants”) for acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff=s medical needs, in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

On May 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the screening order 

dismissing Defendants Howerton and Felton for failure to state a claim, filed on September 24, 

2012. Defendants did not file a response and the motion has been submitted upon the record 

without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l). 

Plaintiff’s mere disagreement with the screening order is not grounds for relief. McCarthy 

v. Mayo, 827 F.2d 1310, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987). However, based on Plaintiff’s attachment of 

documents he obtained through discovery, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as seeking relief 

Case 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO Document 50 Filed 11/06/13 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

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), which allows for relief based on newly 

discovered evidence. To prevail on a Rule 60(b)(2) motion, Plaintiff must show (1) the evidence 

existed at the time of the order from which he seeks relief, (2) the evidence could not have been 

discovered through due diligence, and (3) the evidence is of such magnitude that production of it 

earlier would have been likely to change the disposition. Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 

875, 878 (9th Cir. 1990).

In dismissing Defendants Howerton and Felton from the action, the Court found Plaintiff’s 

conclusory allegations that they reviewed his CDCR-7362 health care request forms were

insufficient to support a claim that they acted with deliberate indifference toward his medical 

needs; and prior to dismissing them, the Court provided Plaintiff with not one but two

opportunities to amend. (Doc. 24, Screening Order, 2:4-10; Docs. 12, 14.) Plaintiff’s attachment 

of the “Access to Primary Care” policy, which he obtained through discovery after the screening 

order was issued, does not alter the Court’s conclusion nor does Plaintiff’s attachment of various 

request forms. (Doc. 45, Motion, pp. 12-26.) 

In particular, the “Inmate Request for Interview Form” submitted by Plaintiff supports the 

Court’s conclusion. (Id., p. 26.) The note written by Defendant Howerton stated she sent 

Plaintiff’s request to Chief Medical Officer Igbinosa for review and disposition, an action which 

does not demonstrate deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff’s medical needs. Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994). Finally, Defendant O’Brien’s interrogatory 

response that she informed Howerton that Plaintiff had complained of pain is insufficient to 

support Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 

(1977); Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 

1122 (9th Cir. 2012). (Motion, 9:2-3.) 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO Document 50 Filed 11/06/13 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

The Court finds that the newly discovered evidence submitted by Plaintiff is not of such 

magnitude that had it been presented earlier, the Court would not have dismissed Defendants 

Howerton and Felton for failure to state a claim. Jones, 921 F.2d at 878. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

motion for reconsideration of the screening order, based on newly discovered evidence, is 

HEREBY DENIED, with prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

Case 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO Document 50 Filed 11/06/13 Page 3 of 3