Opinion
CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01444-AWI-MJS (PC)
03-31-2015
MICHAEL A. SPARKMAN , Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 23)
CASE TO REMAIN CLOSED
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
On July 29, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and a recommendation to deny Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 24.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff filed four pleadings that failed to state a claim before the Court determined that further leave to amend would be futile and would be denied. (See ECF Nos. 1, 7, 14, 17.) The Magistrate Judge noted that these pleadings, although legally insufficient, were nonetheless coherent and intelligently presented. Plaintiff now objects that the deficiencies in his complaints are attributable to his mental health issues and cognitive disorders. However, as the Magistrate Judge noted, there is nothing in the pleadings to indicate that facts capable of stating a cause of action exist. Significantly, the reconsideration motion does not indicate what additional facts Plaintiff could allege to cure the deficiencies identified in the four prior complaints. Additionally, Plaintiff does not adequately address why he waited over a year to file the reconsideration motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (parties have one year to file motions under Rules 60(b)(1)-(3) and have a "reasonable time" to file motions under Rules 60(b)(4)-(6)). Although Plaintiff indicates that he suffered from psychiatric/mental infirmities around the time of the March 2013 Findings and Recommendation, information attached to Plaintiff's objections do not appear to indicate the problems were continuing in June, July, and August of 2013.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations, filed July 29, 2014 (ECF No. 23), in full;IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2015
2. Plaintiff's June 27, 2014 motion to vacate the order adopting the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 21), which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration, is DENIED; and
3. The action shall remain closed.
/s/_________
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE