Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-01146/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-01146-2/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 

JACOB SILVERMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MENDIBURU, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 17-01146 BLF (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION; DENYING 

OTHER PENDING MOTIONS 

(Docket Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55, 57 & 58) 

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint in pro se pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 10, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment and dismissed Plaintiff’s excessive force claim; judgment was entered 

the same day. (Docket Nos. 48 & 49.) 

Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the case, which the Court construes as a motion 

for reconsideration. (Docket No. 52.) Plaintiff has also filed a motion to enforce 

subpoena, (Docket No. 53), a motion an “emergency filing,” (Docket No. 54), motion to 

appoint counsel, (Docket No. 55), administrative motion to file under seal, (Docket No. 

57), and a motion for reconsideration of court appointed counsel, (Docket No. 58). 

Where the court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order (e.g., after 

dismissal or summary judgment motion), a motion for reconsideration may be based either 

Case 5:17-cv-01146-BLF Document 60 Filed 08/08/18 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

on Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion for relief from 

judgment) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors v. N. 

Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). A motion for reconsideration 

under Rule 59(e) “‘should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the 

district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 

there is an intervening change in the law.’” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 

(9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc). The denial of a motion for reconsideration 

under Rule 59(e) is construed as a denial of relief under Rule 60(b). Id. at 1255 n.3 (9th 

Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc). Rule 59(e) is used for a substantive change of 

mind by the court while Rule 60(a) should be used when the court has made an error in 

execution that requires the judgment to be corrected to implement the intended purpose. 

Tattersalls, Ltd., v. DeHaven, 745 F.3d 1294, 1299 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted; they 

are not a substitute for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. 

See Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 

1981). “‘[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of 

controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or 

prevent manifest injustice.’” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 

364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 

713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)). 

Here, Plaintiff asserts that the Court never received his opposition and that 

Defendants tampered with the video evidence they submitted in support of their motion. 

(Docket No. 52.) First of all, Plaintiff’s opposition was filed on November 28, 2017, and 

was comprised of a 24-page brief, and 39 pages of exhibits. (Docket No. 28.) The Court 

referred to it and duly considered it in ruling on Defendants’ summary judgment motion. 

(Docket Nos. 48 at 1, 4, 9, 10.) The Court also duly considered Plaintiff’s argument in 

Case 5:17-cv-01146-BLF Document 60 Filed 08/08/18 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

opposition that the video footage was tampered with and rejected it. (Id. at 4, fn. 4.) 

Accordingly, there is no merit to Plaintiff’s argument that his opposition was never filed 

and not properly considered in the Court’s ruling. Plaintiff fails to set forth any other 

grounds to justify reconsideration, e.g., an intervening change of controlling law, new 

evidence, clear error in the Court’s dismissal of the action, or “manifest injustice.” Hodel, 

882 F.2d at 369 n.5. Absent highly unusual circumstances, and Plaintiff pleads none, the 

Court finds no other basis for granting this motion for reconsideration where the Court’s 

granting of Defendants’ summary judgment motion was correct. Accordingly, the motion 

for reconsideration is DENIED. (Docket No. 52.) 

In light of this denial, Plaintiff’s other post judgment motions, (Docket Nos. 53, 54 

& 57), are DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s motions related to appointment of counsel, 

(Docket Nos. 55 & 58), are DENIED to raising it in the Ninth Circuit on appeal. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, and 58. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order Denying for Recon.; Other Motions 

P:\PRO-SE\BLF\CR.17\01146Silverman_deny.recon.docx 

Case 5:17-cv-01146-BLF Document 60 Filed 08/08/18 Page 3 of 3