Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00939/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00939-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

JASON TAYLOR,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

NORM CRAMER, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00939-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 42.)

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jason Taylor (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs

(collectively, “the Plaintiffs”),

1

all civil detainees, filed the Complaint commencing this action 

on June 18, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On July 17, 2014, the court issued an order denying the Plaintiffs‟ 

request for this case to proceed as a class action. (Doc. 22.) On September 26, 2014, the court 

issued an order severing the Plaintiffs‟ claims and directing the Clerk‟s Office to open new 

action for the fifteen Co-Plaintiffs. (Doc. 41.) Jason Taylor is now the sole Plaintiff in the 

present case.

 

1 There were fifteen Co-Plaintiffs: John S. Garibay, Everett Kite, Oscar Marshall, Alfonson Mouzon, 

Khanh Nguyen, Jaffar Oliver, Carlos Paniagua, Billy Ray Redding, Edward Ronje, Jorge L. Rubio, Dennis 

Sharkey, Manuel Stell, Frank Sumahit, Andrew Warren, and Anthony Weathington.

Case 1:14-cv-00939-AWI-GSA Document 43 Filed 10/31/14 Page 1 of 4
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

On October 16, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court‟s 

order denying the Plaintiffs‟ request for this case to proceed as a class action. (Doc. 42.)

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

A. Legal Standards

Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with 

reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 

Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or 

misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies 

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to 

prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” 

exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and 

citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond 

his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking 

reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different 

facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such 

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 

“A motion for reconsideration 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 controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 

Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations 

marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 

disagreement with the Court‟s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already 

considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 

F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a 

strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare 

Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and 

reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

Case 1:14-cv-00939-AWI-GSA Document 43 Filed 10/31/14 Page 2 of 4
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

B. Plaintiff’s Motion

The Plaintiffs request reconsideration of their motion to proceed as a class action, in 

light of the Ninth Circuit‟s decision in Samuels v. Ahlin, case no. 13-16044. The Plaintiffs 

argue that they are entitled to “a similar remedy” as that found in Samuels v. Ahlin “under the 

doctrine of stare decisis” and “should not have to wait on individuals to contract the lethal 

disease in order to have their day in Court.” (Motion, Doc. 42. at 2:9, 20-21.) The Plaintiffs 

request class certification “because of their ages, medical conditions, and the inadequate and 

lack of preventive measures to block one from contracting the deadly spores of Valley Fever.” 

(Id. at 2-3.)

C. Discussion

The court denied the Plaintiffs‟ motion for class certification because “the Plaintiffs are 

all non-lawyers proceeding without counsel, and none of the Plaintiffs can „fairly and 

adequately protect the interests of the class‟ as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.” (Order, Doc. 22 at 

1-2.) 

The Ninth Circuit‟s decision in Samuels v. Ahlin to which the Plaintiffs refer was 

issued on August 21, 2014. Samuels v. Ahlin, No. 13-16044, 2014 WL 4100684 (9th Cir. Aug. 

21, 2014). In this case, plaintiff Dougal Samuels, a civil detainee housed at Coalinga State 

Hospital, “alleged that defendants knew of the life threatening risk of building Coalinga State 

Hospital in a highly endemic area for valley fever, but nonetheless approved or failed to stop 

the facility‟s construction.” Id. at *1. Samuels‟s case was dismissed by the trial court for 

failure to state a claim, and Samuels appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth 

Circuit found that the dismissal of Samuels‟s safe conditions claim was premature, holding that 

Samuels‟s “allegations, liberally construed, were „sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to 

file an answer.‟” Id. The decision in Samuels does not concern class certification and is not 

supportive of the Plaintiffs‟ motion for reconsideration.

The Plaintiffs have not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce 

the court to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration shall be 

denied.

Case 1:14-cv-00939-AWI-GSA Document 43 Filed 10/31/14 Page 3 of 4
4

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

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiffs‟ motion for 

reconsideration, filed on October 16, 2014, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00939-AWI-GSA Document 43 Filed 10/31/14 Page 4 of 4