Cathy v. Palma

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CHARLES RAY CATHY, Case No.: 3:22-cv-01565-GPC-JLB CDCR #V-39913, 11 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 12 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION vs. 13 [ECF No. 20.] PALMA, Correctional Officer; 14 MORALES, Correctional Officer;

15 V. DORSEY, Correctional Officer; A. AMAT, Correctional Officer; 16 E. URIBE, Correctional Officer; 17 J. ANGULO, Correctional Sergeant; ALVAREZ, Correctional Officer; 18 M. TRIMBLE, Correctional Officer; 19 GALVAN, Correctional Officer; CASTRO, Correctional Officer; 20 THORPE, Correctional Officer; 21 BRADFORD, Correctional Officer; PREA, Correctional Officer; 22 NAVARRO, Correctional Officer, 23 24 Defendants. 25 26 On October 7, 2022, Plaintiff Charles Ray Cathy, proceeding pro se and incarcerated 27 at Calipatria State Prison (“CAL”), filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 28 § 1983. (ECF No. 1, Compl.) On May 15, 2023, pursuant to the Court’s order, Plaintiff 1 filed a Supplemental Complaint. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff alleges various correctional 2 officials employed at CAL used excessive force, failed to protect, and retaliated against 3 him in July and August 2022, because he filed prison grievances reporting racially 4 discriminatory housing practices. (ECF No. 1, Compl. at 4, 12, 13.1) The supplemental 5 complaint alleges new incidents of retaliation arising after the filing of the original 6 Complaint involving defendants as well as new allegations of retaliation, physical assault 7 and racial discrimination against newly added defendants. (ECF No. 13 at 1-6, 9-11, 16, 8 18, 21, 22, 35-37, 39-43.) 9 Accompanying the Supplemental Complaint was Plaintiff’s motion to appoint 10 counsel. (ECF No. 14.) On May 25, 2023, the Court denied the motion to appoint counsel. 11 explaining that Plaintiff had not demonstrated “exceptional circumstances” at this stage 12 because he was able to “articulat[e] the factual basis for his . . . . claims” and he had “yet 13 to demonstrate and it [was] too soon to tell whether he is likely to succeed on the merits.” 14 (ECF No. 15 at 4.) On July 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration 15 of the Court’s order denying his motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff argues 16 that because he is in administrative segregation, he will not have enough “time to complete 17 discovery”, (id. at 1), and priority pass users of the library are only provided with 30 days 18 of law library access which he claims is not sufficient for him to complete discovery. (Id.) 19 Discussion 20 A Legal Standard on Motion for Reconsideration 21 A district court has inherent power to reconsider a motion in the name of sound 22 judicial discretion. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 678 (1980) (granting a 23 district court the power to reconsider a previously denied motion). There is no “precise 24 rule” that expressly grants a district court the power to reconsider an order. United States 25 v. Lopez-Cruz, 730 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 2013). “The authority of district courts to 26 27 28 1 reconsider their own orders before they become final, absent some applicable rule or statute 2 to the contrary, allows them to correct not only simple mistakes, but also decisions based 3 on shifting precedent, rather than waiting for the time-consuming, costly process of 4 appeal.” United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000) (looking to local 5 rules of Central District of California as “explicit textual source of authority” for 6 reconsideration motion). 7 Here, the relevant provision of the Southern District of California Civil Local Rule 8 7.1(i)(1) provides that on a motion for reconsideration a party must present “what new or 9 different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not 10 shown, upon such prior application.” S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(i)(1). Additionally, the Civil 11 Local Rules imposes a 28-day time limit on motions for reconsideration. Id. at 7.1(i)(2). 12 The order denying the appointment of counsel was filed on May 25, 2023 and 13 Plaintiff filed his motion on July 11, 2023. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration was 14 filed past the 28 day time limit and is untimely. However, even if the motion was timely, 15 it fails on the merits. Plaintiff has failed to present new or different facts that would warrant 16 reconsideration. In the prior motion, he sought the assistance of counsel due to limited 17 prison library access and his need to conduct a factual investigation and cross-examine 18 witnesses. (ECF No. 14 at 2.) Similarly, in his motion for reconsideration, he claims he 19 has limited ability to conduct discovery because he is in administrative segregation and 20 because he is limited to conduct discovery during the 30 days prior to a court established 21 deadline.2 (ECF No. 20 at 1, 5.) Plaintiff has not presented any new or different facts that 22 would warrant reconsideration of the Court’s order denying his motion to appoint counsel. 23 Moreover, this case is still in its early stages. An answer has not been filed on the 24 Supplemental Complaint. A case management conference has not been held and discovery 25 has not yet commenced. To the extent Plaintiff will need additional time for discovery or 26

27 2 It appears he is challenging the Priority Legal User status for use of the law library. (ECF No. 20 at 1, 28 1 respond to any future motions, he may seek leave of court for an extension of time. 2 || Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 3 Conclusion 4 For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the 5 || Court’s order denying his motion to appoint counsel. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: August 17, 2023 (2. □□ 8 Hon. athe Cad. 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 oe