McCurdy v. Deal
- Beth Freeman
- 5:17-cv-01043
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In McCurdy v. Deal, Judge Freeman denied reconsideration and denied as unnecessary a motion to strike the appeal.
James McCurdy’s motions for reconsideration and to strike his appeal were denied; the earlier judgment granting Dr. B. Deal summary judgment remained in place, and McCurdy was directed to proceed under the Ninth Circuit’s instructions.
What happened
In McCurdy v. Deal, James McCurdy asked the court to change its earlier judgment granting Dr. B. Deal summary judgment on McCurdy’s claim that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.
McCurdy argued that the court had not ruled on an earlier request, improperly separated claims, misunderstood his allegations about tramadol, and should have appointed a lawyer. The court rejected each argument, finding no new evidence, change in controlling law, clear error, or manifest injustice.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied McCurdy’s motion for reconsideration. She also denied as unnecessary McCurdy’s motion to strike his appeal and directed him to proceed under the Ninth Circuit’s instructions.
The detailed version
- McCurdy v. Deal · No. 5:17-cv-01043
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 31, 2019
Background
James McCurdy, identified as a California inmate proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials, including Dr. B. Deal at San Quentin State Prison. On September 10, 2019, the court granted Deal’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed McCurdy’s Eighth Amendment claim alleging deliberate indifference. Judgment was entered the next day.
McCurdy filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the court treated as a motion for reconsideration. He argued that the court had not ruled on an earlier reconsideration request, improperly divided the case into separate matters, incorrectly understood his allegations about who discontinued his tramadol medication, and failed to appoint counsel despite exceptional circumstances.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that reconsideration after a final judgment may proceed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Reconsideration generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice.
The court rejected each asserted ground. It found that McCurdy was mistaken about the earlier reconsideration request because the court had ruled on it on February 5, 2019, although the copy sent to McCurdy had been returned as undeliverable. The court also found no error in separating the claims involving Deal and another defendant because the defendants worked at different institutions and the alleged conduct occurred at different times.
The court further concluded that McCurdy’s argument about the tramadol allegations did not show clear error. In an earlier summary-judgment ruling concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies, the court had determined that McCurdy exhausted only claims against Deal at San Quentin State Prison and against another defendant at Pelican Bay State Prison; claims against the other named San Quentin defendants had been dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Finally, the court found no error in denying McCurdy’s requests for appointed counsel. It concluded that his circumstances were not exceptional, the claims were not especially complex, and McCurdy had consistently shown an ability to explain his claims and pursue the case.
Ruling
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the motion for reconsideration. The court also denied as unnecessary McCurdy’s motion to strike his notice of appeal. It directed McCurdy to proceed with the appeal in accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s order, which had held the matter in abeyance pending resolution of the reconsideration motion and instructed him to file an amended notice of appeal within the time allowed by the appellate rules. The order terminated Docket Nos. 147 and 151.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.