Ortega v. Santa Clara County Jail

Background

Carlos A. Ortega, an insanity acquittee at Napa State Prison, filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events that occurred at Santa Clara County Jail while he was previously incarcerated. On November 27, 2019, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action as time-barred and entered judgment for the defendants.

Ortega then filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), which permits corrections of clerical mistakes. Because he argued that the court had made a legal error in deciding that his claims were time-barred, the court construed the filing as a motion for reconsideration. The court considered whether reconsideration was warranted under Rule 59(e), which permits a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment, or Rule 60(b), which permits relief from a judgment in specified circumstances.

Ortega’s arguments

Ortega argued that the court had clearly erred by finding that he was not entitled to equitable tolling under California Code of Civil Procedure § 352(a). That provision excludes from the limitations period time when a plaintiff lacks legal capacity to make decisions. Ortega relied on findings that he had been found not guilty by reason of insanity on May 7, 2007, and September 4, 2007.

He also relied on a prior related proceeding, Case No. 14-cv-03783, in which the court had not found his claims time-barred. The court explained that timeliness was not at issue in that earlier proceeding, and that the court had not decided whether Ortega had legal capacity during the events in that case or on December 12, 2012, the date relevant here. The earlier proceeding involved different incidents. The court also noted that a December 5, 2012 psychological evaluation reported that Ortega had been restored to competency for periods of time.

Ruling

The court rejected Ortega’s first argument because it had already considered and rejected it in the dismissal order. It rejected the second argument because a reconsideration motion generally cannot be used to present an argument for the first time when it could reasonably have been raised earlier. The court also concluded that the insanity findings from 2007 did not establish that Ortega lacked legal capacity on December 12, 2012.

The court found that it had not committed clear error in dismissing the action as time-barred and denied the motion for reconsideration under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). The order terminated Docket No. 34, and the case remained closed.