(PC) Fredrickson v. Baniga ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WARREN FREDRICKSON, No. 1:20-cv-00398-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. (Doc. No. 18) 14 U. BANIGA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Warren Frederickson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On August 31, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s First Amended 20 Complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed 21 for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 13.) The magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff 22 “sufficiently alleged that he had a serious medical need” in connection with an injury to his foot, 23 “and that certain nurses and doctors were aware of this need,” but that he “has not sufficiently 24 alleged that any of the nurses or doctors were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need. 25 (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 26 recommendations and then granted an extension to do so. (See Doc. No. 15.) The extended 27 deadline to file objections passed, and plaintiff did not filed objections or otherwise responded to 28 the findings and recommendations. The undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations 1 in full on January 8, 2021. (Doc. No. 16.) 2 On January 25, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 18.) In that 3 motion, plaintiff fails to explain why he did not timely file objections to the findings and 4 recommendations. Even if plaintiff had provided such an explanation, he has failed to justify 5 reconsideration of the January 8, 2021 order under either possible standard applicable to a motion 6 for reconsideration. 7 “There are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: 1) the motion is 8 necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; 2) the 9 moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 3) the motion is 10 necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or 4) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” 11 Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and 12 internal quotation marks omitted). 13 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), 14 [o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the 15 following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable 16 diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called 17 intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 18 satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no 19 longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 21 As to Rule 60(b)(6), plaintiff “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his 22 control that prevented him from proceeding with the action in a proper fashion.” Harvest v. 23 Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 24 Additionally, Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest 25 injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from 26 taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” (Id.) (citation and internal 27 quotation marks omitted). 28 ///// 1 Plaintiff has failed to set forth facts or law that would satisfy any of the above-mentioned 2 reasons for granting reconsideration. He explains that, at least in part due to the ongoing public 3 health crisis, he has had difficulty accessing his medical records, difficulty accessing the law 4 library, and difficulty obtaining the assistance of others within the prison that normally would 5 help him with his legal filings. (See generally Doc. No. 18.) While the court is sympathetic to 6 these logistical difficulties, they do not justify reconsideration of the court’s January 8, 2021 7 order. As the magistrate judge explained in a September 23, 2020 order granting plaintiff a 8 substantial extension of time to file his objections to the then-pending findings and 9 recommendations: “if Plaintiff needs a further extension of time to object because he is unable to 10 get his medical records, Plaintiff must explain why he needs his medical records to respond to the 11 findings and recommendations. The Court notes that Plaintiff does not need to submit evidence 12 at this stage of the proceedings.” (Doc. No. 15 at 1–2.) Nonetheless, plaintiff failed to timely 13 request an additional extension and still has not explained why he required his medical records (or 14 any of the other resources he claims to be having difficulty accessing) to address the deficiencies 15 in his claims identified in the findings and recommendations. 16 Finally, plaintiff’s objections request permission to add retaliation claims to this case, 17 including claims alleging that he is being denied access to his medical records as a form of 18 retaliation and/or to prevent him from being able to prosecute this lawsuit. (See Doc. No. 18 at 19 1–2.) A motion for reconsideration is not an appropriate mechanism to advance such claims 20 because plaintiff’s underlying deliberate indifference claim has been dismissed and as such there 21 is no longer an operative complaint for plaintiff to amend. “ ‘[O]nce judgment has been entered 22 in a case, a motion to amend the complaint can only be entertained if the judgment is first 23 reopened under a motion brought under Rule 59 or 60.’ ” Henry v. Adventist Health Castle Med. 24 Ctr., 970 F.3d 1126, 1133 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Lindauer v. Rogers, 91 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th 25 Cir. 1996)). 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 For the reasons explained above, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 18) is 2 | denied. This case shall remain closed. 3 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a i Dated: _ February 11, 2021 Pa AL = 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28