Butler v. Moon et al
Filing
22
ORDER Denying Motion for Reconsideration 20 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/20/11. (Gonzalez, R)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
MAURICE F. BUTLER,
CASE NO.
1:09-cv-02074-MJS (PC)
9
Plaintiff,
O RD ER D EN YI NG
RECONSIDERATION
10
M OT ION
FO R
v.
11
(ECF No. 20)
JONG YEOUNG MOON, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
/
14
15
Plaintiff Maurice F. Butler (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
16
forma pauperis in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 30, 2011, the
17
Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Order, ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff alleged
18
inadequate medical care related to shoulder, foot, and eye ailments. The Court found
19
cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Moon for his failure to adequately
20
treat Plaintiff’s foot and eye. (Id. at 10, 11.) All remaining claims and Defendants were
21
dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 11.)
22
On October 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asking that the
23
Court reconsider only Plaintiff’s claims regarding the treatment of his shoulder. (Mot., ECF
24
No. 20, p. 10.) Plaintiff asserts that the Court’s September 30, 2011 Screening Order
25
misinterpreted some of the factual allegations made in the First Amended Complaint and
26
part of the basis for his claim. (Id. at 7.)
27
The Court understood that Plaintiff’s claim regarding his shoulder impairment was
28
based on the allegation that Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference by disapproving
1
surgery. (Order, ECF No. 15.) The September 30, 2011 Screening Order reported
2
Plaintiff’s allegation that all the Defendants eventually denied the surgery. (Id. at 7.) In the
3
motion now before the Court, Plaintiff asserts that the Court made two errors in its
4
Screening Order: (1) attributing the denial of surgery to all of the Defendants when in fact
5
Dr. Clark alone denied the surgery; and (2) stating that Plaintiff’s shoulder claim was based
6
only on the denial of the surgery and omitting the additional allegation that the alternative
7
treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances. (Mot., ECF No. 20.)
8
Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that
9
justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent
10
manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist.
11
Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation
12
omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his
13
control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration
14
of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or
15
circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior
16
motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”
17
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
18
circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
19
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn
20
Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009)
21
(internal quotations marks and citations omitted), and “[a] party seeking reconsideration
22
must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of
23
that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision.
24
Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).
U.S. v.
25
Plaintiff has not met the standard for reconsideration of an order. Plaintiff has only
26
clarified his allegations and has not presented new factual allegations that change the
27
Court’s analysis. Plaintiff fails to show that the Court committed error.
28
Plaintiff has made clear that he alleges that Dr. Clark alone denied the surgery. This
-2-
1
does not change the fact that the surgery was denied because of a difference of opinion.
2
As the Court explained in its Screening Order: “‘[A] difference of opinion between a
3
prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to
4
a § 1983 claim.’ Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir.1981) (internal citation
5
omitted); see also Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989) (prison officials were
6
not deliberately indifferent where one physician recommended surgery, but subsequent
7
treating physicians concluded surgery was unnecessary).” (Order at 8.) The factual
8
distinction raised by Plaintiff does not change the color of his argument. Whether all of the
9
Defendants disagreed with the specialist and denied the surgery or only Defendant Clark
10
did so, this basis of Plaintiff’s claim is still a difference of opinion and does not rise to
11
deliberate indifference. Plaintiff still has not stated a claim for inadequate medical care
12
against the Defendants based on their disapproval of surgery.
13
The second basis of Plaintiff’s motion, that medication and physical therapy were
14
medically unacceptable alternatives to surgery, was previously addressed in the Screening
15
Order. In that order, the Court noted that Plaintiff did not allege a medically unacceptable
16
course of treatment. (Id.) Plaintiff now argues that the Court misinterpreted the First
17
Amended Complaint and that Plaintiff made precisely that allegation. Plaintiff renews his
18
allegation that the alternative treatment was medically unacceptable in light of the
19
specialist’s conclusion that physical therapy was to be avoided until surgery. (Mot., ECF
20
No. 20 at 8.) Plaintiff’s allegation is still based on a difference of opinion between medical
21
professionals; the specialist believed surgery was the best option and Dr. Clark disagreed.
22
Dr. Moon then prescribed an alternative of physical therapy and medication. The fact that
23
the alternative treatment conflicts with the specialist’s first choice does not mean that the
24
Defendants who prescribed or endorsed the alternative exhibited deliberate indifference.
25
Sanchez, 891 F.2d at 242. Again, Plaintiff has not stated a claim for inadequate medical
26
care against the Defendants based on the prescribed alternative treatment.
27
Plaintiff’s motion has clarified his allegations but has not shown clear error or other
28
meritorious grounds for relief. He has not met the burden imposed on a party moving for
-3-
1
reconsideration. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880.
2
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 20) is DENIED, with prejudice.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated:
ci4d6
November 20, 2011
Michael J. Seng
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
