Woods v. Chappell et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01291


Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EARNEST C. WOODS,) No. C 15-1291 JSW (PR) 8)) ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO 9 Plaintiff,) FILE MOTION FOR) RECONSIDERATION; 10) GRANTING EXTENSION OF v.) TIME; DIRECTING PRISON 11) OFFICIALS TO SEND) PLAINTIFF HIS LEGAL 12 KEVIN CHAPPELL, et al.,) MATERIALS) 13) (Dkt. No. 10) Defendants.) 14 __________________________________) 15 Plaintiff, a California prisoner, has filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 16 U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because it contained a 17 vast number of improperly joined claims against many different Defendants. Plaintiff 18 has filed a motion for reconsideration of that order, in which he also makes a number of 19 other requests addressed below. 20 Where the court's ruling has not resulted in a final judgment or order, 21 reconsideration of the ruling may be sought under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of 22 Civil Procedure, which provides that any order which does not terminate the action is 23 subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 24 "Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 25 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 26 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J v. 27 ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 28 1 In the Northern District of California, no motion for reconsideration may be 2 brought without leave of court. Civil L.R. 7-9(a). Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, the 3 moving party must specifically show: (1) that at the time of the motion for leave, a 4 material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the court before 5 entry of the interlocutory order for which the reconsideration is sought, and that in the 6 exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such 7 fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or (2) the emergence of new material 8 facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or (3) a manifest failure 9 by the court to consider material facts which were presented to the court before such 10 interlocutory order. Civil L.R. 7-9(b). Unless otherwise ordered by the court, no 11 response need be filed to a motion under the Local Rule. Civil L.R. 7-9(c). 12 Plaintiff does not allege a material difference in fact or law from when the Court 13 reviewed his complaint, he does not assert that new material facts or a change of law has 14 emerged since the Order dismissing his complaint with leave to amend, nor does he 15 contend that the Court failed to consider material facts presented to the Court in the 16 Complaint. Rather, Plaintiff argues that all of the claims and incidents alleged in the 17 complaint are related because all prison officials and agents who work for or with the 18 prison system are a "single party." That is simply not true. Plaintiff named 29 19 Defendants, including different state and federal government agencies such as the United 20 States Veterans Administrations, the California Department of Corrections and 21 Rehabilitation, and the California Board of Parole Hearings. These are not a single 22 party. He also appears to assert that all of his claims are related because they were 23 retaliation for his lawsuits and grievances. In the Complaint he claims that he was 24 disciplined improperly, did not receive medication or dental care, could not contact his 25 attorney, was denied parole, did not receive his veteran benefits from federal officials, 26 and was denied veteran benefits, among many other substantive claims. He does not 27 28 2 1 claim that these events were simply retaliatory violations of the First Amendment, but 2 rather he presents them as independent claims for the violation of a variety of his 3 constitutional rights. Consequently, leave to file a motion for reconsideration is 4 DENIED. 5 Plaintiff also requests an extension of time, presumably to file his amended 6 complaint. Good cause appearing, the extension is GRANTED. On or before 7 November 20, 2015, he shall file an amended complaint, in conformity with the Order 8 dismissing his complaint with leave to amend, or face dismissal of this case. 9 Plaintiff also requests that the Court obtain documents from the Marin County 10 Public Defender, and for leave to file a motion "for a federal prosecutor." The Court 11 does not have the power to grant these requests. Plaintiff also requests recusal based on 12 the Court's prior rulings, but such rulings are not on their own grounds for recusal. See 13 Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555-56 (1994). Finally, he requests that prison 14 officials send his legal materials to him at Centinela State Prison, where he was recently 15 transferred. Prison officials shall do so within a reasonable period of time, if they have 16 not done so already, or show cause why not. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 DATED: October 14, 2015 19 20 JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3