# Dean > District Court, S.D. California · March 11, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11365380 ## Case - **Full name:** Jermaine Michael Dean v. Dr. R. Y. Zhang - **Court:** District Court, S.D. California - **Decided:** March 11, 2026 - **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/11365380 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERMAINE MICHAEL DEAN, Case No.: 24-cv-413-RSH-JLB CDCR #GI-6959, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT v. 14 [ECF No. 52] DR. R. Y. ZHANG, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Jermaine Michael Dean, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit 19 on February 28, 2024. ECF No. 1. On January 13, 2026, the Court granted Defendant’s 20 motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s operative pleading, the Second Amended 21 Complaint. ECF No. 50. Judgment was entered the same day. ECF No. 51. 22 On January 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to amend the judgment 23 pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 52. Defendant 24 opposes the motion. ECF No. 60. As set forth below, the motion is denied. 25 I. LEGAL STANDARD 26 “Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous 27 order, the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 28 finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 1 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A motion for 2 reconsideration under Rule 59(e) ‘should not be granted, absent highly unusual 3 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 4 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” 5 McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting 389 Orange St. 6 Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). “A Rule 59(e) motion may not be 7 used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably 8 have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 9 2003). 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 Plaintiff argues, first, that in this lawsuit he faced “continuous denial for discovery 12 from the Counsel for the Defendant,” ECF No. 52 at 2, and indicates that he made a Public 13 Records Act request that was not honored, id. at 3. He also states that his motion for 14 appointment of counsel cited the need for discovery. Id. Plaintiff’s motion does not explain 15 how any specific discovery that he was denied would have been relevant to the Court’s 16 summary judgment order. To the extent Plaintiff is taking issue with the U.S. Magistrate 17 Judge’s order denying his motion to compel discovery, ECF No. 43, Plaintiff does not 18 expressly say so, and does not identify any deficiency in its reasoning. 19 Second, Plaintiff argues that “[t]he medical records retrieved through the institution 20 more than show that the statements that [Defendant] made in his Motion for Summary 21 Judgment, and that were recited in the Order are contrary to fact. Drs. A[]mory and Seiden 22 were not the hold up, in fact both stated that the delay in the surgery is why Plaintiff will 23 continue to have the problems and degeneration of his ability to use his arm and hand, due 24 to nerve damage.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff does not cite to the record for this assertion. 25 Furthermore, nothing in Plaintiff’s Rule 59 motion appears to take issue with the Court’s 26 determination, in its summary judgment order, that there was insufficient evidence from 27 which a jury could conclude that Defendant—who referred Plaintiff for an orthopedic 28 surgical consultation the same day he correctly diagnosed Plaintiff’s condition, and who 1 thereafter submitted a surgical request immediately after surgery was approved—acted 2 || with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. See ECF No. 50 at 9-10. 3 Third, Plaintiff contends that the claims of Defendant’s medical expert “are 4 ||misleading and contrary to numerous citings by medical board’s recommendations, 5 || including cases cited in numerous federal courts wherein it is discussed the length of time 6 || between the injury and the surgery in order to provide the necessary treatment.” ECF No. 7 ||52 at 3. Plaintiff does not provide further specificity, any citation to the record, or any 8 || explanation of how his assertion bears on the Court’s grant of summary judgment. 9 Plaintiff has not carried his burden to show that he is entitled to the extraordinary 10 ||remedy of Rule 59 relief, on the basis of clear error or any other basis. 11 CONCLUSION 12 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion to amend the judgment [ECF No. 52] 13 DENIED. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: March 11, 2026 fekut Howe 16 Hon. Robert S. Huie 7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11365380. Public record. Not legal advice.