Saddozai v. Bolanos

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHIKEB SADDOZAI, 11 Case No. 18-cv-03972 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. RECONSIDERATION 13 TERRY ARQUEZA, successor to A. 14 ARQUEZA, et al., 15 Defendant. (Docket No. 122) 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights complaint under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. The second amended complaint (“SAC”) is the operative complaint in this 20 action. Dkt. No. 23. The sole defendant in this action, deceased Officer A. Arqueza, was 21 substituted by his widow, Mrs. Terry Arqueza, as his successor. Dkt. No. 52. The Court 22 ordered the matter to proceed on the cognizable claims against Defendant Arqueza. Id. at 23 2. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by declarations and 24 exhibits, Dkt. No. 71, to which Plaintiff did not file an opposition although given extensive 25 time to do so. On June 26, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s summary judgment 26 motion and entered judgment. Dkt. Nos. 116, 117. 27 Plaintiff has filed an ex-parte “notice of motion and motion compelling the Court to 1 reconsider its ruling to adjourn summary judgment; strike Defendant’s false declarations 2 and exhibits; to appoint counsel and to take mandatory judicial notice of Plaintiff’s facts 3 evidence and exhibits – A-to-D.” Dkt. No. 122. The Court will construe this filing as a 4 motion for reconsideration. 5 6 DISCUSSION 7 A. Motion for Reconsideration 8 Where the court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order (e.g., after 9 dismissal or summary judgment motion), a motion for reconsideration may be based either 10 on Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion for relief from 11 judgment) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors v. N. 12 Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). The denial of a motion for 13 reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is construed as a denial of relief under Rule 60(b). Id. at 14 1255 n.3 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc). 15 Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted; they 16 are not a substitute for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. 17 See Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 18 1981). “‘[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of 19 controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or 20 prevent manifest injustice.’” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 21 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 22 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)). 23 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for reconsideration 24 where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or 25 excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have 26 been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) voiding of 1 R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). 2 Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary; 3 mere dissatisfaction with the court’s order or belief that the court is wrong in its decision 4 are not adequate grounds for relief. See Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 5 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently 6 made or freely granted; they are not a substitute for appeal or a means of attacking some 7 perceived error of the court. Id. 8 Plaintiff makes various assertions which fail to establish any grounds for relief. He 9 claims he is undergoing physical therapy, is living in “squalor inhumane living conditions” 10 in prison, is a patient with the mental health care program and class member of 11 Plata/Coleman, and is lacking various legal services. Dkt. No. 122 at 1-2. None of these 12 allegations, even if true, are a basis for reconsideration under Rule 60(b). Plaintiff also 13 claims generally that he is the subject of retaliation by defendant’s attorney “as a result of 14 law suit using litigation tactics and rules extensible beyond the case at bar.” Id. at 3. 15 However, this assertion that Defendant’s counsel acted in bad faith is conclusory and not 16 supported by any facts. There is simply no evidence that defendant’s counsel engaged in 17 misconduct during the course of these proceedings. Lastly, Plaintiff claims that the Court 18 has “acted as a proponent for the defendant’s and opposing counsel in this matter… to 19 manipulate outcome in light of [his] evidence presented, thereby placing limitations and 20 rising to the level of constitutional violations and a fundamental defect inherently resulting 21 in a complete miscarriage of justice and demonstrating cause and prejudice.” Id. at 3. 22 This assertion is simply without merit. Defendant submitted sufficient evidence showing 23 the absence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to Plaintiff’s claims against 24 him. Dkt. No. 116. Plaintiff was granted several extensions of time to file an opposition, 25 and he failed to do so; he was simply unable to produce any relevant evidence to show the 26 existence of a genuine issue for trial. Even construing the facts in his complaint in the 1 || judgment in favor of Defendant. Accordingly, the Court’s decision to grant the motion 2 || was not clear error. 3 In sum, Plaintiff has failed to establish that reconsideration is warranted based on an 4 || intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to 5 || correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of 6 || Indians, 882 F.2d at 369 n.5. Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration must be denied. 7 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 10 || Plaintiff may appeal this matter to the Ninth Circuit. 11 This order terminates Docket No. 122. 3s 12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

|| Dated: _ July 21, 2023 awnfhacnan _ 4 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order Denying Recon PRO-SE\BLF\CR.18\03972Saddozai_deny-recon 26 27