Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00750/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00750-16/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

JOHNNY G. BRIONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. HAND, et al.,

Defendants.

1:14-cv-00750-LJO-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF NO. 52)

Johnny G. Briones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on May 19, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) On August 19, 2016, defendants Cole, 

Hendricks, and Hand filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. (ECF No. 45.) On 

September 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed non-opposition to the motion, stating that he would not be able 

to oppose the motion to dismiss in a timely manner. (ECF No. 48.) Therefore, on September 12, 

2016, the Court dismissed the case, without prejudice. (ECF No. 49.) 

On December 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Examine Administrative Exhaustion 

in Connection with Plaintiff’s Current Complaint.” (ECF No. 52.) The Court construed this as a 

motion to reconsider its order dismissing the case, and found that Plaintiff failed to show that he 

Case 1:14-cv-00750-LJO-EPG Document 55 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 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

2

was entitled to reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (ECF No. 53.) 

However, instead of denying the motion to reconsider, the Court gave Plaintiff the opportunity to 

“submit medical records showing the severity of his condition, including any medical 

documentation indicating why he might have difficulty communicating, and/or any medical 

records showing that he was in the hospital or under the care of a physician at the time he was 

required to oppose the motion to dismiss.” (Id. at p. 3.) (emphasis added).

On February 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed his evidence. (ECF No. 54.) However, Plaintiff 

failed to address the issue he was required to address. Instead of providing evidence showing

why he was unable to respond to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff provided evidence that addresses

only the issue of exhaustion. Plaintiff did not submit any medical documentation indicating why 

he might have difficulty communicating, and instead of providing medical records that show that

“he was in the hospital or under the care of a physician at the time he was required to oppose the 

motion to dismiss,” (ECF No. 53, p. 3) (emphasis added), he filed medical records showing that 

he was in the hospital at the time he was required to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to “submit medical records showing the severity of his 

condition, including any medical documentation indicating why he might have difficulty 

communicating, and/or any medical records showing that he was in the hospital or under the care 

of a physician at the time he was required to oppose the motion to dismiss,” (Id. at p. 3), 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2017 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00750-LJO-EPG Document 55 Filed 02/23/17 Page 2 of 2