Faison v. Branstad

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 MATTHEW LEVI FAISON, JR, Case No. 22-cv-1063-MMA (MSB) INMATE #03634-G1-203, [12] Plaintiff, 13 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S vs. MOTION TO REOPEN CASE [14] BRANSTAD; ANDREW LIPMAN; [15] BRIAN THOMPSON; JIMMY WHITE, [Doc. No. 7] 16 Defendants. [17] 18 On July 7, 2022, Plaintiff Matthew L. Faison, an inmate incarcerated at the 19 Wakulla Correctional Institution in Crawfordville, Florida, proceeding pro se, filed a civil 20 rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Doc. No. 1. On August 23, 2022, the 21 Clerk of Court entered a final judgment after the Court dismissed the Complaint without 22 leave to amend as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 23 (“Dismissal Order”). Doc. Nos. 3–4. On September 26, 2022, the Court issued an order 24 denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 59(e) (“Reconsideration Order”). Doc. No. 6. The Court incorporates both the Dismissal 26 Order and Reconsideration Order by reference here. Plaintiff now asks the Court to 27 reopen his case, asserting that newly discovered, previously unavailable evidence 28 warrants such relief. Doc. No. 7. Because Plaintiff references the newly discovered 1 evidence basis for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) relief, see id. at 1, the Court 2 treats his request as a motion to reconsider the Court’s Final Judgment, Dismissal Order, 3 and/or the Court’s Reconsideration Order. 4 Plaintiff cannot file successive motions for reconsideration and raise the same 5 arguments or those that could have been raised previously. See, e.g., Wages v. IRS, 915 6 F.2d 1230 , 1233 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); Benson v. St. Joseph Reg’l Health Ctr., 575 F.3d 7 542, 547 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that successive Rule 59(e) motions are improper 8 because “[w]ere such motions permitted, it is conceivable that a dissatisfied litigant could 9 continually seek reconsideration and prevent finality to the judgment”); Paraclete 10 v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2010) (holding that “a motion for reconsideration 11 and a successive Rule 60(b) motion ... are inappropriate vehicles to reargue an issue 12 previously addressed by the court when the motion merely advances new arguments, or 13 supporting facts which were available at the time of the original motion”); see also Terry 14 v. Quijote, No. 19-cv-00401-DKW-RT, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101024 , at *3 (D. Haw. 15 June 9, 2020), aff’d, 848 F. App’x 736 (9th Cir. 2021). Nonetheless, the Court has 16 considered Plaintiff’s motion and finds that he is not substantively entitled to the relief he 17 seeks. His motion, again, cures none of the deficiencies noted in the Dismissal Order. 18 The Court previously found that his Complaint could not be cured by additional 19 allegations, and Plaintiff presents no new argument, allegations, or evidence which 20 challenge that finding. For example, even assuming the information he provides in his 21 motion is newly discovered, see Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th 22 Cir. 2011) (identifying “newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence” as a basis 23 for Rule 59(e) relief); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) (providing for relief from judgment or 24 order where the moving party identifies “newly discovered evidence”); CivLR 7.1(i)(1) 25 (requiring a party seeking reconsideration to set forth “what new or different facts or 26 circumstances are claimed to exist”), he still does not plausibly allege that “Mr. Leg. 27 Mason,” a newspaper analyst, see Doc. No. 7 at 2, or any other previously or newly 28 named defendant for that matter, was acting under color of state law. To that end, his 1 || “newly discovered” information does not warrant reconsideration but again “rise[s] to the 2 || level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Denton v Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 , 33 3 }/(1992). 4 In sum, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief under either the 5 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Civil Local Rules. Accordingly, the Court 6 || DENIES Plaintiffs motion, RE-CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this order, the 7 || Dismissal Order, the Court’s August 23, 2022 Judgment, or the Reconsideration Order, 8 || would be frivolous and therefore not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 9 || § 1915(a)(3), and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to terminate this civil action. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: October 20, 2022 12 Mitel lu - hiblr 13 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 14 United States District Judge