Washington v. Sandoval et al
Filing
82
ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 71 Motion for Leave to File; denying 73 Motion for Extension of Time to File ;GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JESSE WASHINGTON,
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
14
15
D. SANDOVAL and D. SANDQUIST,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 10-0250 LHK (PR)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION;
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION; GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT
COUNSEL
16
17
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at California State Prison - Corcoran, and proceeding pro
18
se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged
19
that Defendants Sandoval, Sandquist, and Townsend were deliberately indifferent to his safety,
20
and retaliated against him during his incarceration at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). On
21
March 22, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary
22
judgment, stayed the action, and referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Vadas for settlement
23
proceedings. On June 21, 2012, Magistrate Judge Vadas filed a minute order stating that the
24
parties were unable to settle on the remaining retaliation claim. Currently pending before the
25
Court are Defendants’ motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, and
26
Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel.
27
28
Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration; Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint
Counsel
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.10\Washington250reconapptcounsel.wpd
1
2
DISCUSSION
I.
3
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration
Rule 60(b) provides a mechanism for parties to seek relief from a judgment when “it is
4
no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application,” or when there is any
5
other reason justifying relief from judgment. Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 853-54 (9th
6
Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration only upon a
7
showing of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
8
evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the Court’s decision;
9
(3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or
10
(6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5
11
F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds
12
justifying relief are extraordinary; mere dissatisfaction with the Court’s order or belief that the
13
Court is wrong in its decision are not adequate grounds for relief. Twentieth Century - Fox Film
14
Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981).
15
Defendants request that the Court dismiss Defendant Sandquist from this action because
16
Plaintiff does not sue Sandquist for the remaining retaliation claim. A review of Plaintiff’s
17
complaint reveals that Defendants are correct, and the Court inadvertently neglected to dismiss
18
Defendant Sandquist from the order granting in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
19
Accordingly, Defendant Sandquist is DISMISSED from this action.
20
II.
21
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
Plaintiff filed objections1 to the Court’s order granting in part Defendants’ motion for
22
summary judgment. The Court construes Plaintiff’s objections as a motion for reconsideration.
23
So construed, the motion is denied for the reasons set forth below.
24
Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate its order granting Defendants Sandoval and
25
Sandquist qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to safety. The Court
26
granted Defendants qualified immunity after finding that the law was not so clearly established
27
28
1
Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections is GRANTED.
Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration; Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint
Counsel
2
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.10\Washington250reconapptcounsel.wpd
1
as to when a slippery floor becomes a sufficiently substantial risk, and concluded that Plaintiff’s
2
case fell somewhere between Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 1998) (recognizing that a
3
slippery floor could give rise to a constitutional claim where prison officials did not provide an
4
inmate on crutches with an accessible shower, despite their knowledge that the lack of an
5
accessible shower had already caused the inmate to fall and injure himself several times), and
6
Jackson v. Arizona, 885, F.2d 639, 641 (9th Cir. 1989) (recognizing that a bare complaint about
7
a slippery floor, without more, does not state a claim for cruel and unusual punishment).
8
Plaintiff attempts to persuade the Court that the facts show that Defendants violated a clearly
9
established law because his case is so factually similar to that in Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124
10
(9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff also argues that the Court overlooked these “indistinguishable” facts.
11
First, Plaintiff states that the toilet leak was inside his living quarters and continued for
12
almost 40 days – not 17 days – before prison officials came to address it. (Mot. at 5.) In the
13
Court’s order, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court summarized
14
that Plaintiff noticed the in-cell toilet leak when he moved into the cell on June 10, 2008.
15
(Compl. at ¶ 5.) While Plaintiff states that his cellmate, Inmate Robinson, told Plaintiff that he
16
had already alerted Defendants Sandoval or Sandquist about the leak, Plaintiff was not specific
17
about when Robinson spoke with Defendants. Plaintiff alleged that he personally spoke with
18
Defendants about the toilet leak, specifically on July 1, 2008. (Pl. Decl. at ¶ 9.) Even assuming
19
that the leak was present from the date Plaintiff moved into his cell, i.e., June 10, 2008,
20
Plaintiff’s evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff told Defendants about the leak on July 1, 2008 –
21
seventeen days before Plant Operations was contacted about the leak.
22
Next, Plaintiff says his medical condition was more serious than the inmate in Frost
23
because Plaintiff was not to be placed in triple bunks, Plaintiff could not walk any stairs, Plaintiff
24
was to remain on the lower tier, and Plaintiff was mobility impaired. The Court considered all
25
these facts prior to issuing its order. Although Plaintiff asserts now that the Defendants were
26
aware that Plaintiff could not walk without his cane, and that Defendants were present at
27
Plaintiff’s Unit Classification Committee meeting on June 18, 2008, Plaintiff did not reveal this
28
Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration; Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint
Counsel
3
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.10\Washington250reconapptcounsel.wpd
1
information prior to the Court’s order. Further, Plaintiff’s citations to portions of the record to
2
support this assertion concern his requests for a replacement mattress to relieve Plaintiff’s
3
chronic lower back pain. The record does not support Plaintiff’s new assertions.
4
Third, Plaintiff claims that, like the inmate in Frost, Plaintiff repeatedly asked that the
5
leaking toilet be fixed, Plaintiff be moved, or Plaintiff be transferred for safety reasons.
6
However, the only evidence of Plaintiff’s requests appears to have occurred after Plaintiff had
7
already slipped and fallen. (Compl. at ¶ 39; Pl. Decl. at ¶¶ 41-42.)
8
9
In sum, the Court finds unavailing Plaintiff's argument that the Court overlooked certain
facts as to warrant reconsideration of the Court’s March 22, 2012 order granting in part
10
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Court considered Plaintiff’s arguments prior to
11
issuing the March 22, 2012 order. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration appears to be mere
12
dissatisfaction with the Court’s conclusion granting qualified immunity for the deliberate
13
indifference claim, which is not an adequate ground for relief. See Twentieth Century - Fox Film
14
Corp., 637 F.2d at 1341. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
15
III.
16
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel
Plaintiff has moved for appointment of counsel to litigate the remaining retaliation claim
17
against Defendant Sandoval. It appears that the case will be tried. The Court concludes that
18
counsel should be appointed, and grants Plaintiff’s motion. This matter is referred to the Federal
19
Pro Bono Project to find counsel.
20
The Clerk shall forward to the Federal Pro Bono Project: (i) a copy of this order, (ii) a
21
copy of the docket sheet, and (iii) a copy of the operative complaint and relevant Court orders.
22
Upon an attorney being located to represent Plaintiff, that attorney shall be appointed as counsel
23
for Plaintiff in this matter until further order of the Court. All proceedings in this action are
24
stayed until four weeks from the date an attorney is appointed to represent Plaintiff.
25
26
27
CONCLUSION
1.
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. Defendant Sandquist is
DISMISSED.
28
Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration; Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint
Counsel
4
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.10\Washington250reconapptcounsel.wpd
1
2.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
2
3.
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is GRANTED. This action remains
3
4
5
6
STAYED until further Court order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8/2/12
Dated: ____________________
_______________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration; Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint
Counsel
5
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.10\Washington250reconapptcounsel.wpd
]]>
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?
