Green v. Solis ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CEDRIC EUGENE GREEN, Case No.: 18cv1804-CAB (BLM) 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 56] v. 14 R. SOLIS, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On January 31, 2020, this Court issued an order granting Defendant’s motion for 19 summary judgment [Doc. No. 53], and judgment was entered accordingly [Doc. No. 54]. 20 On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to alter judgment pursuant to Federal Rule 21 of Civil Procedure 59. [Doc. No. 56.] On April 3, 2020, Defendant filed an opposition to 22 the motion. [Doc. No. 59.] On April 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of 23 time to file a reply to the opposition. [Doc. No. 60.] On April 15, 2020, the Court 24 granted Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and gave Plaintiff until May 29, 2020 25 to file a reply. [Doc. No. 61.] To date, no reply has been filed. 26 27 The Court deems the motion for reconsideration suitable for determination on the 28 papers submitted and without oral argument. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(d)(1). For the 1 reasons set forth below, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 2 DISCUSSION 3 4 A. Legal Standard. 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 provides that after entry of judgment, a party 6 may file a motion to alter or amend the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). “Reconsideration 7 is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) 8 committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an 9 intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. 10 ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 11 “Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous 12 order, the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 13 finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 14 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A Rule 15 59(e) motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence 16 for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation. Id. 17 “[A]fter thoughts” or “shifting of ground” do not constitute an appropriate basis for 18 reconsideration. Ausmus v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 08–CV–2342–L, 2009 WL 2058549, 19 at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2009) (Lorenz, J.). In other words, a Rule 59(e) motion does not 20 give parties a “second bite at the apple.” See Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236–37 21 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Keweenaw Bay Indian Cmty. v. State of Mich., 152 F.R.D. 562, 22 563 (W.D. Mich. 1992) (“[W]here the movant is attempting to obtain a complete reversal 23 of the court’s judgment by offering essentially the same arguments presented on the 24 original motion, the proper vehicle for relief is an appeal.”); Bermingham v. Sony Corp. 25 of Am., Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834, 856 (D.N.J. 1992), aff'd 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir. 1994) (“A 26 party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s 27 decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before 28 1 rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.”) (citation 2 omitted). Ultimately, “[t]here is no requirement that reasons be stated for the denial of a 3 motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e).” Briddle v. Scott, 63 F.3d 364, 381 (5th Cir. 4 1995). 5 B. Analysis. 6 7 Here, Plaintiff does not identify any change in controlling authority or new 8 evidence. Rather, he merely rehashes arguments he presented or could have presented in 9 the underlying motion for summary judgment. 10 Plaintiff argues the Court committed “clear error” with regard to four aspects of its 11 summary judgment ruling. First, Plaintiff argues the Court failed to consider the entirety 12 of Plaintiff’s health care appeal No. DSH-SVSP-HC-16000066. [Doc. No. 56 at 2.] 13 However, Plaintiff already raised this argument in his opposition to the summary 14 judgment motion; and the Court correctly ruled that the health care appeal only exhausted 15 the claims against the doctor, not Defendant Solis. 16 Second, Plaintiff argues the Court committed clear error when it failed to find that 17 his Inmate Appeal RJD-17-00866 raised claims about Defendant Solis’ misconduct on 18 August 15, 2016. [Doc. No. 56 at 2.] However, the Court fully considered Plaintiff’s 19 Inmate Appeal RJD-17-00866, and correctly found that there was no mention of 20 Defendant Solis in that appeal. 21 22 Third, Plaintiff argues that his transfer from RJD was a material reason the Court 23 rejected Plaintiff’s argument that he feared retaliation if he filed an inmate appeal against 24 Defendant Solis. However, that was not a material reason for the Court’s ruling. Rather, 25 the Court found significant that Plaintiff’s alleged interaction with Officer Perez was 26 objectively “innocuous” and “the fact that [Plaintiff] filed nine inmate appeals thereafter, 27 . . . , nearly four months after he was transferred from RJD, . . . does not constitute 28 evidence of an objective fear of retaliation so severe as to have rendered the grievance 1 || process ‘effectively unavailable.’” [Doc. No. 53 at 21 (citations omitted). ] Finally, Plaintiff argues that his Appeal No. RJD-16-04433 provided notice to 3 CDCR of his claims of retaliation against Defendant Solis. [Doc. No. 56 at 4-5.] Again, Plaintiff already argued this in his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. ° [Doc. No. 51 at 13-15.] The Court considered this argument and rejected it. [Doc. No. ° 53 at 15-16.] 7 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the reasons set forth above, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Dated: June 3, 2020 4 & 2 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 3 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28