# Padilla v. Arredondo

> District Court, S.D. California · July 30, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10081615

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** July 30, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10081615

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RAMON PADILLA, Case No.: 3:20-cv-0828-WQH-RBM
CDCR #K-33879,
12
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
Plaintiff,
13 RECONSIDERATION
vs.
14
[ECF No. 9]
L. ARREDONDO; P. COVELLO;
15
S.K. HEMENWAY,
16 Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22 I. Procedural History
23 On April 30, 2020, Ramon Padilla (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at the Richard
24 J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) located in San Diego, California and proceeding
25 pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Compl., ECF No.
26 1).
27
28
1 Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) when he
2 filed his Complaint; instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)
3 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2).
4 On May 21, 2020, the Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP but
5 DISMISSED his Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
6 & 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff was granted to leave to file an amended
7 pleading in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified in the Court’s Order.
8 (See id.) On June 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF
9 No. 5.)
10 On July 2, 2020, the Court, once again, sua sponte screened Plaintiff’s FAC and
11 found that he failed to correct any of the deficiencies of pleading contained in his
12 Complaint and DISMISSED the entire action for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28
13 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) & 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). (ECF No. 6.) The Court further found that
14 granting further leave to amend would be futile. (Id.)
15 On July 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 9.)
16 II. Motion for Reconsideration
17 A. Standard of Review
18 Under Rule 60, a motion for “relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding” may
19 be filed within a “reasonable time,” but usually must be filed “no more than a year after
20 the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c).
21 Reconsideration under Rule 60 may be granted in the case of: (1) mistake, inadvertence,
22 surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) fraud; or if (4) the
23 judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) for any other reason justifying
24 relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
25 B. Plaintiff’s Motion
26 In Plaintiff’s FAC, he alleged that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights
27 were violated when he was subjected to a disciplinary hearing based on the finding of
28 contraband in his cell which he claims belonged to his cellmate. (See FAC at 3-4.)
1 The Court had previously informed Plaintiff, in the May 21, 2020 Order, that the
2 Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “protects prisoners against deprivation
3 or restraint of a ‘protected liberty interest’ and ‘atypical and significant hardship on the
4 inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.’” (May 21, 2020 Order, ECF No.
5 4, citing Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Sandin v. Connor,
6 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).)
7 Plaintiff was also informed that “although the level of the hardship must be
8 determined in a case-by-case determination, courts look to:
9 1) whether the challenged condition ‘mirrored those conditions imposed upon
inmates in administrative segregation and protective custody,’ and thus
10
comported with the prison’s discretionary authority; 2) the duration of the
11 condition, and the degree of restraint imposed; and 3) whether the state’s
action will invariably affect the duration of the prisoner’s sentence.
12

13 (Id. at 3-4; Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 861 (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 486-87).
14 Despite the Court’s Order informing Plaintiff of the lack of such claims in his
15 Complaint, Plaintiff’s FAC was also devoid of any factual allegations with regard to the
16 conditions of confinement he was subjected to as a result of his disciplinary conviction.
17 There were simply no facts in Plaintiff’s FAC that indicated that he was subjected to any
18 “atypical and significant hardship” as a result of his disciplinary conviction.
19 Plaintiff argues in his Motion for Reconsideration that he has “newly obtained
20 evidence” demonstrates that he has proof that he should not have been found guilty of
21 actual possession of contraband that belonged to his cellmate. (See Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 9,
22 at 1-2.) Plaintiff maintains that both Supervising Appeals Coordinator and Warden Pollard
23 “will both testify under oath that I should NEVER have been charged, found guilty, nor
24 punished for being in possession of my former cellmate’s cellphone.” (Id. at 2.)
25 Even if Plaintiff’s disciplinary conviction is set aside or vacated, he still has not
26 alleged facts to show he suffered any “atypical and significant hardship” resulting from the
27 disciplinary hearing. Even if he had plead facts sufficient to invoke a protected liberty
28 interest, his FAC and subsequent Motion for Reconsideration fails to allege facts that he
1 || was denied the procedural protections the Due Process Clause requires. Ramirez, 334 F.3d
2 || at 860 (citations omitted); see also Brown v. Oregon Dep’t of Corr., 751 F.3d 983, 987 (9th
3 || Cir. 2014.) Plaintiff's Motion fails to address any of the deficiencies of pleading identified
4 either of the Court’s screening Orders.
5 A motion for reconsideration cannot be granted merely because Plaintiff is unhappy
6 || with the judgment, frustrated by the Court’s application of the facts to binding precedent
7 || or because he disagrees with the ultimate decision. See 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur
8 ||R. Miller Federal Practice & Procedure § 2810.1 (3d ed.) (‘[R]econsideration of a
9 || judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.”’).
10 Conclusion and Order
11 For the reasons explained, the Court:
12 DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 9).
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14 || Dated: July 30, 2020 BE: eg Ze. Ma
15 Hon, William Q. Hayes
16 United States District Court
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10081615. Public record. Not legal advice.