Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01681/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01681-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arias
Defendant
Jonathan W. Mundo
Plaintiff
Raybon
Defendant
Salgado
Defendant
A. Taylor
Defendant

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN W. MUNDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. TAYLOR, ARIAS, RAYBON, and 

SAIGADO,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01681-DAD-GSA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. No. 33)

Plaintiff Jonathan W. Mundo is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation. He filed this action on November 5, 2015. (Doc. No. 1.) 

On May 18, 2016, the court screened plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint and found that 

it stated a claim against defendants Taylor, Arias, Raybon and Salgado for deliberate indifference 

to a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff 

was ordered to either amend his complaint, or notify the court of his willingness to proceed only 

on the Eighth Amendment/failure to protect claim that had been found to be cognizable. (Doc. 

No. 29.) On June 15, 2016, plaintiff filed a fifth amended complaint, which is currently awaiting 

screening. (Doc. No. 32.) 

On January 22, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 

21.) Thereafter, on January 29, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

Case 1:15-cv-01681-DAD-GSA Document 38 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 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

2

recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order be 

denied on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant preliminary relief because no 

operative complaint had been filed. (Doc. No. 24 at 2.) The assigned magistrate judge

alternatively recommended that plaintiff’s motion be denied because his previously dismissed 

complaint presented a failure to protect claim stemming from an incident at Centinela State 

Prison in 2015, while his motion for a temporary restraining order complained of verbal threats 

and harassment in 2016 and sought relief aimed at his access to the prison library. Accordingly, 

the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff “is not entitled to any relief that is not narrowly 

drawn to correct the violation of his rights at issue in this action.” (Doc. No. 24 at 2.)1 On March 

29, 2016, this court adopted the magistrate judge’s alternative recommendation and denied 

plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 28 at 3.) 

On August 12, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s March 29, 

2016, order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 33.) 

District courts “possess[] the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify 

an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient.” City of L.A., Harbor Div. v. Santa 

Monica Baykeeper, 254 F. 3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). A motion for reconsideration, however, “should not be granted . . . unless the district 

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

intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F. 3d 656, 

665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F. 3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). 

Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the interests 

of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F. 

3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 

882 F. 2d 364 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he orderly administration of lengthy and complex litigation 

such as this requires the finality of orders be reasonably certain.”). 

 

1

Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint filed February 10, 2016, stated similar claims as those 

previously presented, all relating to an alleged failure to protect incident that occurring at 

Centinela State Prison in 2015. (Doc. No. 26; see also Doc. No. 28 at 2.) 

Case 1:15-cv-01681-DAD-GSA Document 38 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 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

3

Here, plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the denial of his motion for temporary restraining 

order because he has allegedly been subject to additional harassment since the March 29, 2016, 

order denying the requested preliminary relief. (See Doc. No. 33 at 1.) Such allegations do not 

entitle plaintiff to the requested preliminary relief in this action. As both the assigned magistrate 

judge and the undersigned have explained to plaintiff, any request for equitable relief must be 

sufficiently related to the claims pending before this court. This civil rights action relates to a 

failure to protect claim arising from events which allegedly took place in 2015 at Centinela State 

Prison. Plaintiff’s most recent allegations of harassment at his current institution of confinement 

made in both his motion for temporary restraining order and the instant motion for 

reconsideration are not related in any way to the claim presented in this case.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 33) is therefore denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01681-DAD-GSA Document 38 Filed 09/09/16 Page 3 of 3