(PC) Delphin v. Morley

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 23, 2025
• Docket: 1:19-cv-01076
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY DELPHIN, Case No. 1:19-cv-01076-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. (Doc. 122) 14 J. MORLEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION1 18 On May 21, 2024, this Court issued its order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary 19 Judgment based upon Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 120.) Judgment 20 was entered for Defendants that same date. (Doc. 121.) 21 On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Response to Summary Judgment 22 Granting.” (Doc. 122.) Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s May 21, 2024, order. 23 Defendants opposed (Doc. 124) and Plaintiff replied (Doc. 125). 24 On December 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. 126.) The appeal was 25 processed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the following day (Doc. 127) and assigned case 26

27 1 On March 21, 2023, this action was reassigned to the undersigned for all purposes with the issuance of District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston’s Order Reassigning Case. (See Doc. 102.) 28 1 number 24-7867 (Docket Entry 128). Because Plaintiff’s notice of appeal was filed after his 2 motion for reconsideration, this Court has jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s pending motion. See 3 Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i) (“If a party files a notice of appeal after the court announces or 4 enters a judgment—but before it disposes of any motion listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A)—the notice 5 becomes effective to appeal a judgment or order, in whole or in part, when the order disposing of 6 the last such remaining motion is entered”). 7 II. SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES’ BRIEFING 8 A. Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. 122) 9 Plaintiff contends “camera footage at C.H.C.F. B1B cell 124 or 123 or (B306B2) of 10 October thru September” supports his assertion that there exist genuine issues of material fact 11 precluding summary judgment for Defendants. Plaintiff asserts “it is not believable that [he] did 12 not appeal on time because Plaintiff has appealed before.” He contends the Court did not look “at 13 camera footage” that would have demonstrated that “c.o.’s refused to give Plaintiff an appeal” 14 and he “was late replying to appeal coordinator because he lost appeal, and property being held, 15 Plaintiff did try to present evidence to substantiate the claims ….” Plaintiff contends the 16 grievance or appeal process was unavailable to him. He states he did not request “camera footage 17 of August 2, 2017 thru August 9, 2017,” but he requested footage for October 10, 2017, through 18 October 13, 2017. He states he now seeks “camera footage of October thru September B1B cell 19 123 or 124 or (B306B1).” 20 B. Defendants’ Opposition (Doc. 124) 21 Defendants contend Plaintiff’s motion does not identify any new or different facts that 22 could not have been raised in his opposition to their motion for summary judgment. Defendants 23 state that Plaintiff relies on the same arguments regarding video evidence that he previously 24 asserted. Defendants allege that because the Court has already considered Plaintiff’s argument, 25 Plaintiff cannot satisfy the applicable Local Rule requiring that he identify new facts or 26 circumstances and explain why the facts could not have been raised earlier. Finally, Defendants 27 contend Plaintiff’s motion does not identify any other basis for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) of 28 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 C. Plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. 125) 2 Plaintiff “asks court to see video and audio footage,” alleging it will establish “mistake in 3 advertence, surprise or excusable neglect” and “newly discovery evidence” that could not have 4 been discovered “in time to move for a new trial.” Plaintiff asserts “new evidence will be found if 5 court sees camera footage video and audio” for a period between August 2, 2017, and March 30, 6 2018. Plaintiff states “fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the opposing party” is 7 established because his grievances or appeals were “thrown away” by prison officials. He 8 contends the “judgment is void” because video footage exists to support his assertion that “the 9 appeal process was unavailable.” 10 Although Plaintiff does not cite to a particular rule in his motion, the Court construes it as 11 arising under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 12 III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS 13 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows: 14 Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal 15 representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: 16 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 17 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could 18 not have been discovered in time to more for a new trial under Rule 59(b); 19 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 20 misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 21 (4) the judgment is void; 22 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or 23 applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or 24 (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under subsections (1), (2), and (3) must be filed within one year; 26 motions made under the other subsections must be filed “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. 27 P. 60(c)(1). Under the catchall provision of Rule 60(b)(6), the Court has the power to reopen a 28 judgment even after one year. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 1 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993). 2 Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the 3 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Entres., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 4 229 F.3d 977, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 5 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). In seeking reconsideration 6 under Rule 60, the moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his 7 control.” Harvest, 531 F.3d at 749 (internal quotation marks & citations omitted). 8 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 9 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 10 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 11 raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 12 raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 13 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks & citations omitted). Further, Local Rule 14 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that a movant show “what new or different facts or circumstances 15 are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown” previously, “what other grounds exist 16 for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown” at the time the substance 17 of the order which is objected to was considered. 18 IV. DISCUSSION 19 There Was No Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, or Excusable Neglect Warranting Reconsideration 20 21 The Court conducted an extensive analysis of the evidence submitted by Defendants as 22 well as Plaintiff’s arguments before concluding Plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient evidence to 23 demonstrate his failure to exhaust administrative remedies should be excused. (Doc. 120 at 18- 24 24.) Plaintiff fails to explain what mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect warrants 25 reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), and simply disagrees with the Court’s order 26 granting summary judgment to Defendants. Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 252 F.Supp.2d 936, 938 27 (D. Az. 2003) (a motion for reconsideration cannot be used to ask the Court to rethink what the 28 1 Court has already thought through merely because a party disagrees with the Court's decision); 2 Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988) (mere disagreement with 3 a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration); see also Wideman v. Ige, No. CV 20- 4 00162 LEK-KJM, 2020 WL 2820138, at *1 (D. Haw. May 29, 2020) (“Mere disagreement with a 5 court's analysis is an insufficient basis for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)”), appeal 6 dismissed, No. 20-16676, 2020 WL 8677817 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2020); In re Benham, No. CV13- 7 00205-VBF, 2013 WL 3872185, at *9 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2013) (“[A] motion for reconsideration 8 cannot be used to ask the Court to rethink what the Court has already thought through merely 9 because a party disagrees with the Court's decision”). 10 To the extent Plaintiff asks the Court “to see video footage,” because its failure or refusal 11 to do so amounts to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, Plaintiff’s argument is 12 unpersuasive. A party opposing summary judgment may not rely upon the allegations or denials 13 of their pleadings, but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, 14 and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the dispute exists or shows 15 that the materials cited by the movant do not establish the absence of a genuine dispute. See Fed. 16 R. Civ. P. 56(c); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, n.11 17 (1986). Here, neither video nor audio footage evidence is a part of this record (see further 18 discussion below); thus, such footage did not support Plaintiff’s position that there was a genuine 19 dispute concerning the purported unavailability of administrative remedies. While “electronically 20 stored information” encompasses video and audio evidence, again, such evidence was not 21 proffered here.2 22 Plaintiff’s motion will be denied based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 23 neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). 24 // 25 // 26 2 Compare Cotton v. Medina, No. 1:22-cv-00568-JLT-EPG, 2024 WL 1313045, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 27 2024) (where court treated video of plaintiff’s “Grievance Interview” as “an exhibit filed in support of plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion where the video was submitted to the 28 court, and the parties did not object to its use as an exhibit or raise concerns about its authenticity). 1 There Are No New Facts or Evidence to Consider 2 Plaintiff’s assertions that video or audio footage would support his claims that prison 3 officials interfered with his ability to exhaust his administrative remedies do not amount to new 4 facts or evidence. The Court acknowledged Plaintiff’s assertion in its May 2024 order, stating: 5 Plaintiff twice states that the Court can view certain “camera footage” or listen to “audio” from the facility that will prove the 6 unavailability of the administrative remedy. (See Doc. 108 at 2, 3.) It is not the Court’s duty to obtain evidence for any party. If Plaintiff 7 believes video or audio recordings would support his claims or argument here, his obligation was to obtain that evidence and submit 8 it to the Court for consideration. The Court notes it issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order (“D&SO”) on July 14, 2022. (Doc. 9 81.) The D&SO was modified three times (see Docs. 85, 87, 91) and the deadline for the completion of all discovery was May 15, 2023 10 (see Doc. 91 at 3). 11 (Doc. 120 at 14, n.4.) Plaintiff’s contention that any audio or video footage amounts to “new facts 12 or evidence” is misplaced. The motion will be denied on based on newly discovered evidence. 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). 14 There Is No Fraud, Misrepresentation, Or Misconduct by An Opposing Party 15 “In determining whether fraud constitutes fraud on the court, the relevant inquiry is not 16 whether fraudulent conduct prejudiced the opposing party, but whether it harmed the integrity of 17 the judicial process.” United States v. Sierra Pac. Indus., Inc., 862 F.3d 1157, 1168 (9th Cir. 18 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted); United States v. Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 19 444 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[m]ere nondisclosure of evidence ... [or] perjury by a party or witness, by 20 itself, is not normally fraud on the court”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see 21 also Martin v. Muniz, No. 17-cv-01690-BLF-PR, 2021 WL 2139443, at *2. (N.D. Cal. May 25, 22 2021). There must be an intentional, material misrepresentation that goes to the case's central 23 issue and affects the case's outcome. See Sierra Pac. Indus., 862 F.3d at 1168; Martin, 2021 WL 24 2139443, at *2. 25 Here, Plaintiff does not allege Defendants obtained the judgment by way of fraud, 26 misrepresentation, or misconduct. And nothing in this record supports such an allegation. Plaintiff 27 had a full and fair opportunity to present his case during summary judgment proceedings. 28 Plaintiff’s motion will be denied based on fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct. Fed. R. Civ. 1 P. 60(b)(3). 2 The Judgment Is Not Void 3 In his reply brief, Plaintiff alleges the judgment is void because video or audio footage 4 shows that his administrative remedies were unavailable. 5 The Supreme Court has defined a “void” judgment for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4) as 6 follows: 7 A void judgment is a legal nullity. See Black's Law Dictionary 1822 (3d ed. 1933); see also id., at 1709 (9th ed. 2009). Although the term 8 “void” describes a result, rather than the conditions that render a judgment unenforceable, it suffices to say that a void judgment is one 9 so affected by a fundamental infirmity that the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final. See Restatement 10 (Second) of Judgments 22 (1980); see generally id., § 12. The list of such infirmities is exceedingly short; otherwise, Rule 60(b)(4)’s 11 exception to finality would swallow the rule. 12 United States Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010). Here, the Court finds there 13 is nothing in this record establishing that the judgment rendered for Defendants was so affected 14 by a fundamental infirmity that it warrants voiding the judgment. Plaintiff’s motion will be 15 denied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). 16 There Are No New or Different Facts or Circumstances 17 Finally, Plaintiff has not shown any “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to 18 exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist 19 for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j). The arguments Plaintiff presents in his motion are the same as 20 those already presented by Plaintiff which were previously considered and rejected by the Court. 21 Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to show that reconsideration of or relief from the May 21, 2024, 22 order is appropriate. 23 Summary 24 Plaintiff’s motion reasserts arguments previously considered by the Court. The 25 undersigned previously considered Plaintiff’s suggestion that the Court should view video footage 26 that purportedly supports his claims, but was not a part of this record, and addressed whether 27 Plaintiff’s administrative remedies were unavailable to him in its May 21, 2024, order. Plaintiff 28 has not set forth facts or law to merit a reversal of the Court’s prior decision. See Kern-Tulare 1 Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and 2 reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). This Court declines to grant the 3 extraordinary remedy Plaintiff seeks. Harvest, 531 F.3d at 749; Kona Entres., Inc., 229 F.3d at 4 890. 5 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 6 Based upon the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 7 1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 122) is DENIED; 8 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide a copy of this order to the Ninth 9 Circuit Court of Appeals, case number 24-7867; 10 3. The Court will not issue any further orders in this closed case; and 11 4. This case remains closed. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: May 23, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28