(PC) Garces v. Gamboa ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUIS MANUEL GARCES, Case No. 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. (ECF No. 131). 14 M. GAMBOA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s prior order 18 denying Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 131). For the following 19 reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 On April 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the Court’s prior order denying 22 Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 131). Plaintiff asks the Court to 23 reconsider its October 26, 2022 order (ECF No. 76) because Plaintiff’s changed circumstances 24 warrant reconsideration. (Id.) Plaintiff’s motion states that Plaintiff was “illegally” declared 25 incompetent by prison psychiatrists who are falsely diagnosing Plaintiff as mentally ill. (See id. at 26 pp. 1-7).1 Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 27 28 1 Plaintiff’s lengthy motion also repeats several allegations that Defendants are harassing Plaintiff 1 in light of the fact that Plaintiff has been declared incompetent. (Id.) 2 The Court directed Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 3 (ECF No. 133). On April 24, 2023, Defendants, along with non-parties, California State Prison 4 Sacramento (CSP-SAC) and Kern Valley State Prison (KSVP), filed a response. (ECF No. 136). According to Defendants’ response, 5 Medical and mental health staff at KVSP determined that Plaintiff’s hunger strike 6 and irrational behavior and reasoning warranted mental health intervention due to 7 adverse impacts on his physical health. (Decl. of I. Singh, at ¶¶ 5-15.) Plaintiff refused to accept kosher meals for approximately 25 days, and was admitted to the 8 Correctional Treatment Center (“CTC”) and hospital on multiple occasions, due to a hunger strike Plaintiff premised on beliefs that his food was being tampered 9 with. (Id.) Multiple KVSP medical and mental health staff attempted to counsel Plaintiff on multiple occasions on the severe adverse health outcomes that could 10 possible result from starvation. (Id., at ¶¶ 6, 8, 11-20.) Despite these efforts, and 11 Plaintiff beliefs that physicians should provide life-saving care if necessary, Plaintiff refused to authorize such care despite this counseling, yet denied any 12 suicidal ideations. (Id., at ¶ 8, 11-12, 16.) Plaintiff was appropriately placed in CCCMS, the lowest level of outpatient care within MHSDS:. (Decl. of I. Singh, at 13 ¶ 15.) 14 Medical staff at KVSP were concerned that Plaintiff’s hunger strike, and irrational decisions whether to eat his specialized diet, signaled that Plaintiff mental health 15 intervention. (Decl. of I. Singh, at ¶ 15; Decl. of K. Franceschi, at ¶ 5.) Although Plaintiff began eating regular meals again after placement in CCCMS, Plaintiff 16 resumed his hunger strike again on January 2, 2023. (Decl. of I. Singh, at ¶ 18.) A 17 psychologist recommended a more thorough assessment to determine whether Plaintiff was experiencing delusional thinking impacting his physical wellbeing. 18 (Id.) Approximately one week into his second hunger strike, Plaintiff objected to his placement into MHSDS. (Id., at ¶ 19.) Despite Plaintiff’s objections on January 19 9, 2023, the IDTT determined that Plaintiff should be escalated to the EOP level of care based upon what the IDTT believed was necessary to address Plaintiff’s 20 mental health needs, and for no improper purpose. (Id.) 21 On January 9, 2023, Dr. I. Singh, the Chief Medical Executive at KVSP, petitioned the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) to determine whether Plaintiff had 22 the capacity to make decisions impacting his health as it related to food. (Id., at ¶ 23 20.) This petition was withdrawn based upon further discussion with Plaintiff and other medical and mental health staff. (Id., at ¶ 21.) Thus, there has not been an 24 OAH determination as to Plaintiff’s competency to make decisions concerning his medical care. (Id.) At no time was the decision to place Plaintiff in MHSDS, or 25 determining the level of care he would receive, predicated on the input or orders of Defendants in this case, or from Wardens at KVSP, CSP-SAC, or California State 26 27 in various ways. The Court has previously addressed Plaintiff’s allegations regarding his legal property and meal tampering, see ECF Nos. 118 & 137, and will not entertain issues not relevant 28 to the instant motion. 1 Prison, Corcoran. (Id., at ¶ 22.) At no time did Plaintiff complain of suicidal thoughts or other mental impairments during multiple encounters with care 2 providers. (Id., at ¶ 20.) 3 (ECF No. 136, pp. 5-6). 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 Rule 60(b) provides relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following 6 reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 7 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); 8 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic) misrepresentation, or 9 misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; 10 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is 11 no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); see also Local Rule 230(j). 13 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 14 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 15 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 16 Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). “A party seeking 17 reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the [c]ourt’s decision, and 18 recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original 19 decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 20 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal quotations omitted). To succeed, a party must set forth facts 21 or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior order. See Kern- 22 Tulare Water Dist. V. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in 23 part and reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 24 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration contends that reconsideration is warranted because 25 Plaintiff cannot represent himself if he is declared incompetent. Defendants’ response indicates 26 that Plaintiff has not been declared incompetent. Moreover, Plaintiff does not present any newly 27 discovered facts regarding the difficulty of the legal issues presented in this case or the likelihood of success on the merits, nor set forth any change in the controlling law as to the appointment of 28 1 | pro bono counsel that would support reconsideration. 2 Additionally, Plaintiff has shown a remarked ability to litigate in this case. Plaintiff has 3 | filed eleven motions, including motions to compel and quash discovery, since December 2022. 4 | (See ECF Nos. 89, 90, 93, 94, 103, 106, 108, 121, 125, 130). Those motions have included 5 | detailed factual and legal arguments. While many of those motions have been denied, Plaintiff 6 has shown his ability to cogently articulate his position and advocate in favor of his case. 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff has not established sufficient reason under Rule 60 to warrant 8 reconsideration of the October 26, 2022 order. Il. ORDER ° Based on foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 131) is DENIED. 11 12 | IT IS SOORDERED. Dated: May 18, 2023 [spe ey □□ 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28