Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04232/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04232-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Bowman
Defendant
G. Lauber
Defendant
Charles Dudley Lee
Defendant
Sixto Salcido
Plaintiff
David Zarek
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

SIXTO SALCIDO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DAVID ZAREK, M.D.; CHARLES

DUDLEY LEE, M.D.; ROBERT

BOWMAN, M.D.; G. LAUBER,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-4232 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 58)

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thereafter, the Court granted defendants’ motions

for summary judgment, and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff

has filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgment entered against him.

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

Case 3:04-cv-04232-MMC Document 60 Filed 04/03/06 Page 1 of 2
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

adequate grounds for relief. See Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d

1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 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 simply challenges the analysis of the Court in its ruling on the

summary judgment motions, and reiterates arguments he made previously in connection

therewith . Motions for reconsideration are not a substitute for appeal or a means of

attacking some perceived error of the court. Id. Moreover, for the reasons explained in the

order, none of plaintiff’s arguments creates a genuine issue of material fact that defendants

were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. 

Plaintiff also seeks permission to file an amended complaint alleging a cause of action

for negligence. This Court lacks jurisdiction over any such state law claim, and, as explained

in the Court’s prior order, medical malpractice or negligence will not suffice for purposes of

demonstrating an Eighth Amendment violation. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED. 

This order terminates Docket No. 58.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 3, 2006 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04232-MMC Document 60 Filed 04/03/06 Page 2 of 2