Chavez Sol v. San Francisco County Jail Facility

Background

Salvador Roland Chavez Sol filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while detained at the San Francisco County Jail. The court initially dismissed his complaint with permission to amend because much of it was difficult to understand. After he filed an amended complaint, the court screened it and dismissed it for failure to state a claim for relief. Judgment was entered the same day.

Chavez Sol later filed a letter that the court treated as a motion for reconsideration because he asked to be put “back on calendar.” He said he had come to understand what the courts wanted him to do and referred to additional complaints and a list of names.

Legal standard

Because the challenged ruling resulted in a final judgment, the court explained that reconsideration could be requested under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 59(e) generally requires newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in the law. Rule 60(b) allows relief for specified reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court also explained that reconsideration is not a substitute for an appeal or a way to attack a perceived court error generally.

Ruling

The court found that Chavez Sol identified no basis for reconsideration under Rule 59(e): there was no intervening change in controlling law, no new evidence, and no clear error or manifest injustice. The court also found no basis for relief under Rule 60(b). It therefore denied the motion for reconsideration. The court stated that Chavez Sol could appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

The court additionally directed the Clerk to send Chavez Sol a printout of the docket with the order and to send a courtesy copy of the order and docket to his criminal defense attorney, who had requested copies of correspondence for Chavez Sol.