Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02625/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02625-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Dewayne Bearden
Plaintiff
Hoban
Defendant
Kevin Soo-Thoo
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY DEWAYNE BEARDEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KEVIN SOO-THOO, DR. HOBAN,

Defendants.

_______________________________

_ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-2625 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DENYING

RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 7)

Gary DeWayne Bearden, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated in Salinas Valley

State Prison (“SVSP”), filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Subsequently, the action was dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for

relief. Now before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for reconsideration where

one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered

before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5)

satisfaction of the judgment; (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b);

School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). Subparagraph (6) requires a

showing that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary; mere dissatisfaction with the

court's order or belief that the court is wrong in its decision are not adequate grounds for

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

For the Northern District of California

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

1981). 

Plaintiff does not indicate the provision of Rule 60(b) under which reconsideration is

warranted. Plaintiff alleges no new evidence that could not have been discovered with due

diligence, no mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, no fraud by the adverse

party, and no voiding of the judgment. Plaintiff does not provide any other reason justifying

relief. Rather, plaintiff argues that he should be granted leave to amend the complaint. There

does not appear to be any way that the deficiencies in the complaint could be fairly cured by

amendment, however. In the complaint, plaintiff alleged that for approximately one year, he

had been receiving medical attention and treatment for his condition, including therapy and

group counseling, as well as anti-depressant medication, after which time defendants decided

to discontinue this treatment because it no longer provided any benefit to him. Plaintiff

disagrees with defendants’ decision, but such a difference of opinion does not state a claim

under the Eighth Amendment. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058-60 (9th Cir. 2004)

(holding difference of medical opinion as to need to pursue one course of treatment over

another is insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish Eighth Amendment violation); Franklin v.

Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding difference of opinion between prisoner

and prison medical authorities does not constitute Eighth Amendment violation). Plaintiff

does not explain in his present motion how he would amend the complaint to state a cognizable

claim. 

Consequently, leave to amend is not warranted in this case, and the motion for

reconsideration is DENIED. 

 This order terminates Docket No. 7. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 29, 2005

_________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge