Packnett v. Alvarez et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01229

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying {{82}} Motion for Reconsideration.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 KENNETH JEROME PACKNETT, 6 Case No. 15-cv-01229-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 7 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. RECONSIDERATION 8 FERNAND ALVAREZ, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 This federal civil rights action was filed by a pro se state prisoner. On September 21, 12 2017, the Court issued an order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and motion to Northern District of California United States District Court 13 dismiss. Dkt. 80. The Court also denied Plaintiff's request for a seventh extension of time to file 14 a complete opposition. Id. Judgment was entered accordingly. Dkt. 81. 15 Plaintiff since has filed a motion for reconsideration, which is the subject of this Order, and 16 a Notice of Appeal. Dkts. 82, 83. Where the Court's ruling has resulted in a final judgment or 17 order (e.g., after summary judgment motion), a motion for reconsideration may be based either on 18 Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment) of 19 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 20 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, Plaintiff's motion contains no showing of newly- 21 discovered evidence, or that the Court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was 22 manifestly unjust, or that there was an intervening change in controlling law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 59(e); United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 2009) 24 (quoting Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001)). Nor does the motion 25 contain a showing of newly-discovered evidence, set forth any mistake, inadvertence, surprise, 26 excusable neglect, fraud by the adverse party, or voiding of the judgment; plaintiff offers no other 27 reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 28 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 1 Instead, in the instant motion, Plaintiff focuses on the Court's decision to deny his motion 2 for a seventh extension of time to file a complete opposition, and he requests reconsideration 3 based on the fact that he "was admitted [to the hospital] on September 13, 2017 [and] had another 4 invasive surgery with a metal rod inserted which ran from the right knee to right ankle, connected 5 to two planks on both sides of [his] ankle." Dkt. 82 at 2-3. Plaintiff supports his claim with 6 various medical records and his declaration, in which he specifies that he had fractured his leg on 7 September 13, 2017. Id. at 13. 8 In its September 21, 2017 Order, the Court found that no further extension were warranted 9 because Plaintiff had been granted over ten months' worth of extensions, stating as follows: 10 On the final page of his five-page opposition filed on August 14, 2017, see dkt. 74 at 5, Plaintiff claims that he was "unable to finish" 11 his opposition, even though he has been granted six extensions of time to do so, see dkts. 57, 61, 65, 68, 70, 72. While Plaintiff has 12 had an abundance of time to file a complete opposition to Northern District of California Defendants' motion by the latest deadline of August 7, 2017, he has United States District Court 13 failed to do so. On August 23, 2017, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court claiming that his attempts to finish his opposition had been 14 "compromised" due to an alleged lack of law library access. Dkt. 75 at 1-2. On August 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request for a seventh 15 extension of time to file a complete opposition. Dkt. 77. Defendants filed an opposition to the extension request, and they 16 submitted law library attendance records from Senior Librarian Y. Cheng demonstrating that Plaintiff visited the law library 17 approximately eighty-six times from September 2016 through August 2017. Cheng Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. A. The Court finds that Plaintiff 18 has had an overwhelming amount of time from the six extensions— equating to almost ten months' worth of extensions—to file his 19 opposition, because the original due date was October 11, 2016. There is also ample evidence showing that Plaintiff had extensive 20 access to the law library in order to complete his opposition during the last eleven months. See id. Therefore, the Court DENIES 21 Plaintiff's request for a seventh extension of time to file a complete opposition. Dkt. 77. In the absence of what Plaintiff considers to be 22 a complete opposition, the Court explains below that it has relied upon the allegations in Plaintiff's verified complaint in opposition to 23 Defendants' motion, see Dkt. 1, and, as required under the case law, has construed all facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, see 24 Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). 25 Dkt. 80 at 3 fn. 1. The Court further notes that Plaintiff's alleged September 13, 2017 injury 26 (fracture) and hospitalization occurred more than a month after the "latest deadline" for filing his 27 complete opposition—August 7, 2017. See id. Plaintiff also takes issue with the fact that the 28 Court noted that he had ten months' worth of law library access and "had more than enough time 2 1 to complete [his] opposition to [Defendants'] motion for summary judgment." Dkt. 82 at 16. 2 Plaintiff argues that his law library access was "1st come, 1st serve, with thirty or forty inmates 3 [during] each session; with ten (10) computers and three (3) typewriters." Id. While Plaintiff 4 seems to be alleging that he had limited law library access, the Court notes that Plaintiff does not 5 allege that he was ever denied law library access. As mentioned in the Court's September 21, 6 2017 Order, Plaintiff visited the law library "eighty-six times from September 2016 through 7 August 2017" and thus, he had "extensive access" to the library in order to complete his opposition 8 during the eleven-month time frame. Dkt. 80 at 3 fn. 1 (emphasis added). Further, Plaintiff does 9 not specify in the instant motion what other possible arguments he would have included in 10 opposition to Defendants' dispositive motions. See Dkt. 82. Finally, as mentioned above, 11 Plaintiff has not established any basis for reconsideration under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). 12 See id. Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Dkt. 82. The Clerk of the 14 Court shall send a copy of this Order to the parties and to the Ninth Circuit. 15 This Order terminates Docket No. 82. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: January 31, 2018 18 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3