Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00908/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00908-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arcelia Castaneda
Defendant
Michael B. Williams
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ARCELIA CASTANEDA,

Defendant.

CASE No. 1:16-cv-0908- MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(ECF NO. 7)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He has consented to the undersigned’s jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4.)

On August 1, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it with 

leave to amend for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 6.) On August 22, 2016, Plaintiff 

filed a notice of interlocutory appeal; it was dismissed on September 21, 2016, for lack of 

jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 8, 11.)

Also on August 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to alter, or amend, the judgment 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Review of this motion reveals it to be 

a request for reconsideration of the dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60(b)(6), which allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any 

reason that justifies relief. 

Case 1:16-cv-00908-MJS Document 12 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 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

2

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(j) 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).

As noted in the Screening Order, Plaintiff is an uncommitted civil detainee at 

Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”). He brings this action against Defendant Arcelia 

Castaneda, a Psychiatric Technician at CSH, who is accused of retaliating against 

Plaintiff for his refusal to participate in certain treatment programs at CSH. Because of 

this refusal, Defendant is alleged to have accessed Plaintiff’s confidential medical files to 

prepare a fraudulent and unfavorable current psychological assessment report. Plaintiff 

brings claims for violation of his First Amendment and Due Process rights, as well as 

Case 1:16-cv-00908-MJS Document 12 Filed 09/27/16 Page 2 of 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

3

state law claims for defamation of character and false imprisonment. He seeks 

$16,000,000 in damages. 

On screening, the Court found that Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim 

failed because the conduct that he describes—namely, the exercise of his statutory right 

to decline participation in certain programs at CSH—does not amount to protected 

conduct under the First Amendment. Further, Plaintiff asserted no facts suggesting that 

Defendant’s conduct was motivated by Plaintiff’s refusal to participate in the programs 

and, lastly, there were no allegations that the assessment that he challenges was 

prepared other than in accordance with and furtherance of commitment proceedings 

under the SVPA.1

In the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues as to his First Amendment 

retaliation claim that his refusal to participate in programs at CSH amounts to protected 

conduct. Plaintiff does not address the other deficiencies identified in the Screening 

Order in relation to this claim. 

Plaintiff’s due process claim fares no better. In the Screening Order, the Court 

found this claim so factually deficient that it was unable to determine Plaintiff stated a 

claim. In the instant motion, Plaintiff cites only and summarily to two out-of-circuit cases, 

United States v. Sanders, 211 F.3d 711 (2d Cir. 2000), and United States v. Barner, 572 

F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2009), both of which stand for the proposition that a prosecutor 

may not pursue legal charges against someone for acting in accordance with the law. 

Neither of these cases is helpful here since there is no claim that Defendant has 

prosecuted Plaintiff for lawful conduct. Additionally, any claim that Defendant violated 

Plaintiff’s due process rights by drafting an assessment in response to Plaintiff refusal to 

participate in CSH programs is more properly analyzed under the First Amendment. See

 

1

The Court also noted the similarity between the present action and a case previously-filed by Plaintiff, 

Williams v. Madrid, Case No. 1:13-cv-2104-MJS, which was ultimately dismissed without leave to amend. 

See 2014 WL 814730 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2014) (dismissing complaint asserting identical allegations 

against a CSH social worker), and 2014 WL 1600569 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2014) (dismissing first amended 

complaint without leave to amend for failure to state a claim), aff’d Williams v. Madrid, 609 Fed. Appx. 421 

(9th Cir. 2015).

Case 1:16-cv-00908-MJS Document 12 Filed 09/27/16 Page 3 of 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

4

Armendariz v. Penman, 75 F.3d 1311, 1319 (9th Cir. 1996), overruled in part on other 

grounds by Crown Point Dev., Inc. v. City of Sun Valley, 506 F.3d 851, 852–53 (9th Cir.

2007) (“[W]here a particular amendment provides an explicit textual source of 

constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that 

Amendment, not the more generalized notion of substantive due process, must be the 

guide for analyzing these claims.”)

Lastly, regarding Plaintiff’s state law claims, the Court declined to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over them in the absence of a cognizable federal claim. Plaintiff 

argues in the instant motion that the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction, but 

supplies no supporting legal authority or argument.

In sum, Plaintiff’s motion has not presented any grounds for reconsideration and 

demonstrates, at best, a mere disagreement with the Screening Order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff’s August 22, 2016, motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 7) is 

DENIED; 

2) Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint within thirty days from the 

date of this Order; and

3) Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint within thirty days will result in 

a dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and 

failure to comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00908-MJS Document 12 Filed 09/27/16 Page 4 of 4