Padilla v. Arredondo ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAMON PADILLA, Case No.: 3:20-cv-0828-WQH-RBM CDCR #K-33879, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 RECONSIDERATION vs. 14 [ECF No. 9] L. ARREDONDO; P. COVELLO; 15 S.K. HEMENWAY, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 I. Procedural History 23 On April 30, 2020, Ramon Padilla (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at the Richard 24 J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) located in San Diego, California and proceeding 25 pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Compl., ECF No. 26 1). 27 28 1 Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) when he 2 filed his Complaint; instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) 3 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2). 4 On May 21, 2020, the Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP but 5 DISMISSED his Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 6 & 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff was granted to leave to file an amended 7 pleading in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified in the Court’s Order. 8 (See id.) On June 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF 9 No. 5.) 10 On July 2, 2020, the Court, once again, sua sponte screened Plaintiff’s FAC and 11 found that he failed to correct any of the deficiencies of pleading contained in his 12 Complaint and DISMISSED the entire action for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 13 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) & 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). (ECF No. 6.) The Court further found that 14 granting further leave to amend would be futile. (Id.) 15 On July 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 9.) 16 II. Motion for Reconsideration 17 A. Standard of Review 18 Under Rule 60, a motion for “relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding” may 19 be filed within a “reasonable time,” but usually must be filed “no more than a year after 20 the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c). 21 Reconsideration under Rule 60 may be granted in the case of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, 22 surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) fraud; or if (4) the 23 judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) for any other reason justifying 24 relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). 25 B. Plaintiff’s Motion 26 In Plaintiff’s FAC, he alleged that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights 27 were violated when he was subjected to a disciplinary hearing based on the finding of 28 contraband in his cell which he claims belonged to his cellmate. (See FAC at 3-4.) 1 The Court had previously informed Plaintiff, in the May 21, 2020 Order, that the 2 Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “protects prisoners against deprivation 3 or restraint of a ‘protected liberty interest’ and ‘atypical and significant hardship on the 4 inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.’” (May 21, 2020 Order, ECF No. 5 4, citing Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Sandin v. Connor, 6 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).) 7 Plaintiff was also informed that “although the level of the hardship must be 8 determined in a case-by-case determination, courts look to: 9 1) whether the challenged condition ‘mirrored those conditions imposed upon inmates in administrative segregation and protective custody,’ and thus 10 comported with the prison’s discretionary authority; 2) the duration of the 11 condition, and the degree of restraint imposed; and 3) whether the state’s action will invariably affect the duration of the prisoner’s sentence. 12 13 (Id. at 3-4; Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 861 (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 486-87). 14 Despite the Court’s Order informing Plaintiff of the lack of such claims in his 15 Complaint, Plaintiff’s FAC was also devoid of any factual allegations with regard to the 16 conditions of confinement he was subjected to as a result of his disciplinary conviction. 17 There were simply no facts in Plaintiff’s FAC that indicated that he was subjected to any 18 “atypical and significant hardship” as a result of his disciplinary conviction. 19 Plaintiff argues in his Motion for Reconsideration that he has “newly obtained 20 evidence” demonstrates that he has proof that he should not have been found guilty of 21 actual possession of contraband that belonged to his cellmate. (See Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 9, 22 at 1-2.) Plaintiff maintains that both Supervising Appeals Coordinator and Warden Pollard 23 “will both testify under oath that I should NEVER have been charged, found guilty, nor 24 punished for being in possession of my former cellmate’s cellphone.” (Id. at 2.) 25 Even if Plaintiff’s disciplinary conviction is set aside or vacated, he still has not 26 alleged facts to show he suffered any “atypical and significant hardship” resulting from the 27 disciplinary hearing. Even if he had plead facts sufficient to invoke a protected liberty 28 interest, his FAC and subsequent Motion for Reconsideration fails to allege facts that he 1 || was denied the procedural protections the Due Process Clause requires. Ramirez, 334 F.3d 2 || at 860 (citations omitted); see also Brown v. Oregon Dep’t of Corr., 751 F.3d 983, 987 (9th 3 || Cir. 2014.) Plaintiff's Motion fails to address any of the deficiencies of pleading identified 4 either of the Court’s screening Orders. 5 A motion for reconsideration cannot be granted merely because Plaintiff is unhappy 6 || with the judgment, frustrated by the Court’s application of the facts to binding precedent 7 || or because he disagrees with the ultimate decision. See 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 8 ||R. Miller Federal Practice & Procedure § 2810.1 (3d ed.) (‘[R]econsideration of a 9 || judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.”’). 10 Conclusion and Order 11 For the reasons explained, the Court: 12 DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 9). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: July 30, 2020 BE: eg Ze. Ma 15 Hon, William Q. Hayes 16 United States District Court 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28