(PC) Coston v. Rahimifar ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL MURPHY COSTON, No. 1:17-cv-000765-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. RECONSIDERATION 14 Doc. No. 75. MAJIAD RAHIMIFAR, M.D., et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se motion titled “Request for 18 Reconsideration by District Judge of Magistrate Judge Order ECF [57] & [63]. Local Rule 19 303, F.R.C. P. 72. Plaintiff’s Alternative Notice of Appeal. F.R.A. 3-4.” filed on October 14, 20 2020. Doc. No. 75. Only Defendant Rahimifar, M.D., filed a response in opposition to 21 Plaintiff’s motion on November 2, 2022. Doc. No. 80. For the reasons set forth below, the 22 Court denies Plaintiff’s motion. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 On December 8, 2020, this case was re-assigned from Magistrate Judge Peterson to 25 the undersigned. See Doc. No. 81. A review of the docket reveals Plaintiff, a prisoner, 26 initiated this action by filing a pro se Civil Rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 5, 27 2017. Doc. No. 1. The court granted Plaintiff’s leave to proceed in this action in forma 28 pauperis. Doc. No. 7. After screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff proceeded on his 1 medical deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Majiad Rahimifar, M.D. and 2 Ahmed Mushtaq, M.D. See Doc. Nos. 10, 12. On January 25, 2019, after receipt of all parties’ 3 executed consent forms, United States Chief District Judge O’Neill assigned this case to 4 Magistrate Judge Peterson under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). See Doc. No. 28 (order assigning 5 case from district judge to magistrate judge); see also Doc. No. 9 (plaintiff consent form), 6 Doc. No.22 (Defendant Rahimifar, M.D., consent form); Doc. No. 27 (Defendant Mushtaq, 7 M.D., consent form). After pleadings and discovery had closed, the court granted 8 Defendants Dr. Rahimifar and Dr. Mushtaq’s separate motions for summary judgment on 9 September 22, 2020. See Doc. No. 72. Judgment was entered that same day. Doc. No. 73. 10 II. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 11 A. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 or Local Rule 303 12 Plaintiff, citing to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 303(f), requests 13 the district court to “modify” Judge Peterson’s September 22, 2020 Order because “it is 14 erroneous and contrary to law.” Doc. No. 75 at 5. Because this is a “consent case,” Rule 72 15 and Local Rule 303 do not govern this action. See generally 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1) (permitting 16 magistrate judges to conduct any and all proceedings where the parties consent); Fed. R. 17 Civ. P. 73 (authorizing consent to magistrate judges); Local Rule 305 (E.D. Ca. 2019) 18 (providing procedures for disposition of civil actions on consent). As Defendant Rahimifar 19 correctly points out in opposition, because Plaintiff improperly seeks relief under Local Rule 20 303 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, both of which govern magistrate judge’s orders in non-consent 21 cases, his motion is due to be denied. See Doc. No. 80. Plaintiff’s proper remedy to challenge 22 the September 22, 2020 final order is to file an appeal directly to the appropriate appellate 23 court. 28 U.SC. § 636 (c)(3). Here, Plaintiff did file a timely notice of appeal, which remains 24 pending in the United States Court of Appeals. See Doc. Nos. 76, 79. 25 B. Plaintiff does not sustain his burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or 60 26 This Court is mindful that pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Erickson v. 27 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations omitted) (noting pro se pleadings are to be 28 “liberally construed” and “construed as to do substantial justice.”); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 1 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted) (noting courts’ obligation to liberally 2 construe pro se prisoner civil rights actions and afford pro se prisoners “the benefit of any 3 doubt”). Plaintiff filed the Motion less than twenty-eight (28) days after judgment was 4 entered. In his Motion, Plaintiff’s states he “objects” to Judge Peterson’s order and argues 5 there are questions of material fact that required the denial of Defendants’ respective 6 motions for summary judgment. See generally Doc. No. 75. 7 The Court construes Plaintiff’s pro se motion to be a motion for reconsideration filed 8 under either Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, motion to alter or amend a judgment, or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, 9 relief from judgment. See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. V. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 10 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (other citations omitted) (noting that reconsideration of an 11 order granting summary judgment may proceed under either Rule 59 or Rule 60); see also 12 Bonilla v. Siskiyou County, Case No. 2:18-cv-2555-KJM-KJN, 2019 WL 6618060 (E.D. Ca. Dec. 13 5, 2019) (analyzing reconsideration motion under both Rule 59 and 60). 14 1. Standard of Review 15 Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. 16 Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 17 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly 18 convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See United States v. 19 Westland Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 20 A Rule 59 motion is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests 21 of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Bonilla, 2019 WL 6618060 *1 (citations 22 omitted). A district court may grant reconsideration under Rule 59 when: (1) it is 23 presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) the court committed clear error, or the 24 initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling 25 law. Id.; see also School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (citations omitted). A Rule 59 motion 26 must be filed within twenty-eight days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 27 Rule 60(b) provides relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the 28 following reasons: 1 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 2 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 3 59(b); 4 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic) misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 5 (4) the judgment is void; 6 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based 7 on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or 8 (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, 10 and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) set forth above filed no more than a year after the entry of 11 the judgment or order. Moreover, under Local Rule, the moving party seeking 12 reconsideration of an order must submit an “affidavit . . . setting forth the material facts” 13 that show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist 14 or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 15 Local Rule 230(j). 16 2. Analysis 17 At the outset, the Motion fails to comport with Local Rule 230(j). Nor does Plaintiff 18 sustain his burden under Rule 59 or Rule 60 by demonstrating any newly discovered 19 evidence, change of the controlling law, clear error or any other ground to grant relief. 20 Essentially Plaintiff disagrees with Magistrate Judge Peterson’s decision to grant 21 Defendants’ respective summary judgment motions based upon the Court’s findings that 22 there was no genuine dispute of material facts as to Plaintiff’s medical deliberate 23 indifference claim. Plaintiff merely repeats the same arguments he raised in opposition to 24 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which Magistrate Judge Peterson considered, 25 but rejected, before granting Defendants’ respective motions as a matter of law based on the 26 record. Having considered Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has 27 presented any new or different facts, circumstances, or evidence, or otherwise satisfied his 28 1 | burden to show that the Court committed clear error, or that the result was manifestly 2 | unjust, to justify reconsideration of the prior order and judgment. 3 Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 4 1. Plaintiff's motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and Local Rule 303(f) (Doc. No. 5 75) is DENIED. 6 2. Plaintiff's construed motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (Doc. 7 No. 75) is DENIED. 8 g | IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 |, | Dated: February 25.2021 _ ahaa tarch Lash te HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28