From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Payne v. Gipson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 7, 2015
Case No. 1:13-cv-01557-RRB (E.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 1:13-cv-01557-RRB

07-07-2015

MYRON A. PAYNE, Plaintiff, v. C. GIPSON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER VACATING DISMISSAL ORDER

At Docket 17 Plaintiff Myron A. Payne, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, moved the Court to reconsider its prior Order and Judgment dismissing the case and reconsider its Order dismissing the case with leave to amend. This Court may grant a party relief from a judgment for "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect," or "any other reason that justifies relief."

Dockets 15, 16.

Docket 12.

In his motion Payne establishes that he timely filed his motion that the Court reconsider its order dismissing the case with leave to amend by delivery to prison officials for mailing under the prisoner "mail box rule." For unknown reasons beyond the control of Payne that motion did not reach the Court. As a result, the Dismissal Order, based upon an apparent failure to comply with the Court's order, was improvidently entered. Consequently, Payne is entitled to relief and the dismissal of this action vacated.

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988); Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2010).

To the extent that Payne seeks relief from the Order dismissing Defendants Aqueel El-Amin (Islamic/Muslim Imam), E. Eburuche (Catholic Chaplain), Yosi Carron (Jewish Rabbi), Capt. M. Hodges Wilkins (Appeals Examiner), and Capt. R. Davis (Appeals Examiner), stands on a different footing. Under the law of the case doctrine a court is generally precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the same or a higher court in the same case. However, the law of the case doctrine is not a shackle without a key.

Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir. 1993).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 governs post-judgment motions to amend judgment or for new trial, not interlocutory orders. If the court enters an interlocutory order without entering a final judgment, e.g., an order granting summary judgment but no final judgment is entered under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 54, Rule 59 does not apply. Likewise, Rule 60(b) by its very terms applies solely to final judgments. However, as long as a district court retains jurisdiction over a case, it has inherent power to reconsider and modify an interlocutory order for sufficient cause.

United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2000). For entry of a partial judgment see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ., §2715 (3d ed.).

See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005); Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 825, 833 (9th Cir. 2013); Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. v. PPR Realty, Inc., 204 F.3d 867, 880 (9th Cir. 2000).

City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001).

That inherent power is not unfettered: a court may depart from the law of the case doctrine where: "(1) the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a manifest injustice, (2) intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration appropriate, or (3) substantially different evidence was adduced at a subsequent trial." In this case only the first basis, the order was clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a manifest injustice, has any application.

Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1489 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (footnote and internal quotes omitted); see Leslie Salt Co. v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1393 (9th Cir. 1995); School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

Payne appears to contend that the Court's Dismissal Order was clearly erroneous, i.e., contrary to established law, because it fails to prove: (1) a legal dispute does not exist; (2) the violations have been resolved or ceased to exist; (3) there is no reasonable expectation that that the alleged violation will recur; (4) that the case is moot; and (5) release from the security housing unit at Corcoran and transfer to Kern Valley State Prison notwithstanding, the violations of which he complained were as a result of statewide practice, custom, and usage. Initially, the Court notes that it is not the function of the Court to prove anything. The Court dismissed Payne's complaint as against those Defendants because the Complaint failed to allege facts upon which relief could be granted, nor did appear that Payne could truthfully allege facts upon which relief could be granted. Nothing in Payne's current motion provides any basis for the Court to revisit and reverse its prior decision. Accordingly, to the extent Payne's motion seeks reconsideration of the Dismissal Order it will be denied.

Therefore, for good cause shown, to the extent Payne requests relief from the order dismissing the case at Docket 15, his motion at Docket 17 is GRANTED. To the extent that Payne requests this Court reconsider its Order dismissing the case with leave to amend at Docket 12, the motion is DENIED.

Accordingly, the Order and Judgment entered herein at Dockets 15 and 16 are hereby VACATED. Plaintiff is granted through and including August 10, 2015, within which to file an Amended Complaint consistent with the Court's prior Dismissal Order.

Docket 12. --------

Plaintiff is cautioned that requests for further extensions of time within which to file an amended complaint will be viewed with disfavor; and granted only for extenuating circumstances beyond plaintiff's control.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of July, 2015.

S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Payne v. Gipson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 7, 2015
Case No. 1:13-cv-01557-RRB (E.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2015)
Case details for

Payne v. Gipson

Case Details

Full title:MYRON A. PAYNE, Plaintiff, v. C. GIPSON, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 7, 2015

Citations

Case No. 1:13-cv-01557-RRB (E.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2015)