The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 San Francisco Division
11 MICHAEL HAMPTON, et al., Case No. 21-cv-03058-LB
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
13 v.
Re: ECF No. 66
14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) for reconsideration of the
18 court’s order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss. They raise two grounds for
19 reconsideration: (1) the court did not hold the plaintiffs to their burden of establishing a clearly
20 established constitutional when it analyzed qualified immunity, and (2) it did not consider whether
21 the plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to show that the defendants’ conduct was not immune under
22 state law.1 The court can decide the motion for reconsideration without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7-
23 1(b). The court denies the motion generally because there was no error. The court also amends its
24 earlier dismissal order to expand its analysis.2
25
26
27
1 Mot. – ECF No. 66 at 1–4. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint
citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.
1 The court can reconsider its order under Rule 59(e). “Rule 59(e) amendments are appropriate
2 if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or
3 the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling
4 law.” Dixon v. Wallowa Cnty., 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up). A motion for
5 reconsideration “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present
6 evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker,
7 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008). The sole exception is when the court has committed “clear” or
8 “manifest” error. Mere disagreement with a court’s order does not provide a basis for
9 reconsideration. McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 fn.1 (9th Cir. 1999).
10 The court denies the motion for reconsideration and amends its earlier order for the following
11 reasons.
12 First, the defendants are mistaken that the court shifted the burden to the defendants to define
13 whether an inmate has a clearly established right under the Eighth Amendment to be free from
14 heightened exposure to a serious communicable disease. The earlier order cited the main case and
15 incorporated by reference the plaintiff’s recounting of the relevant cases.3 Also, the court
16 distinguished Hines v. Yousef, 914 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2019), because the defendants raised it as
17 “analogous” case that entitled them to immunity.4 The court thus denies the motion for
18 reconsideration of the court’s earlier order denying qualified immunity. To avoid any
19 misunderstanding of the earlier analysis, the amended order has a fuller account of the relevant
20 cases establishing a clearly established constitutional right.
21 Second, the opportunity to reconsider the earlier order has resulted in the court’s
22 reconsideration of its dismissal of Secretary of the CDCR Ralph Diaz.5 The amended order
23 reflects this. (All orders are interlocutory until they are not.)
24
25
26 3 Id. at 16 & n.43 (citing Opp’n – ECF No. 40 at 18 (collecting cases)); see Opp’n – ECF No. 40 at 17–
20 (collecting and analyzing cases); Opp’n – ECF No. 68 at 5–6 (same).
27
4 Mot. – ECF No. 27-1 at 16–17; Order – ECF No. 57 at 16.
] Third, the court expands its analysis of the state-law immunities in the amended order and
2 denies the motion for reconsideration.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED. LAE
4 Dated: March 20, 2022
LAUREL BEELER
5 United States Magistrate Judge
6
7
8
9
10
1]
13
15
16
Oo
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28