(PC) Hampton v. Austin

Opinion

Gary Grant Hampton, Jr., No. 2:20-cev-01001-KJM-DMC Plaintiff, ORDER v. Austin, et al., 1S Defendants. Plaintiff Gary Hampton, an inmate in a California state prison, filed this action and pursued it without an attorney through judgment. In January of this year, the case was pending on allegations against one defendant, Dr. Welsh, a prison psychologist. Welsh sought summary judgment based on his argument that Hampton had not filed any inmate grievances about Welsh’s actions, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See generally Mot., ECF No. 55. Hampton did not file an opposition. The Magistrate Judge considered Welsh’s motion and the record and agreed there was no evidence to show Hampton had ever filed grievances about Welsh. See generally F&Rs, ECF No. 57. He recommended granting the motion. See id. Hampton objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. See generally Objections, ECF No. 58. He argued he had in fact filed many complaints and grievances over the years, including many medical grievances. See, e.g., id. at 3-4. He did not, however, cite any evidence to show he had filed grievances about Welsh, as the state correctly

pointed out in a reply to Hamptons objections. See generally Reply, ECF No. 59. For that reason, this court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations and granted Welsh’s summary judgment motion. See Order, ECF No. 63. Judgment was entered on September 16, 2024. ECF No. 64. A few days later, Hampton filed a motion reiterating the argument he advanced in objection to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, 1.e., that he had filed many grievances and pursued many appeals to no avail. See Mot. Postjudgment Relief, ECF No. 65. Because he filed that motion less than twenty-eight days after the court entered judgment, it operates as a motion for reconsideration and relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). Except in “highly unusual circumstances,” plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under Rule 59(e) unless they offer newly discovered evidence, cite changes in the controlling law, or identify clear errors. See 389 Orange St. Partners vy. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Hampton has not cited newly discovered evidence, changes in the law, or clear errors. Nor has he demonstrated these are “highly unusual circumstances.” He has reiterated arguments he offered inresponse to the Magistrate Judge’s previous findings and recommendations. Courts do not grant motions for reconsideration based on arguments they have already heard. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.75 (2008). The motion at ECF No. 65 is denied. DATED: October 8, 2024. Abode iA} Y ni STATES DISTRICT JUDGE