Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Jakan Mills, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 20, 2025, against Correctional Officers Patricio and Valencia. After the court initially dismissed the action for failure to pay filing fees or properly move to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), Mills filed an IFP motion, which the court granted on March 26, 2026. The court then screened and dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), identified pleading deficiencies, and granted leave to amend. Mills filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on May 15, 2026, which the court again dismissed on July 24, 2026, for failure to state a claim, granting leave to file a second amended complaint by September 8, 2026, and warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
When no filing was received by the deadline, the court dismissed the action without prejudice on October 8, 2026, for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute, and the Clerk entered judgment. On October 13, 2026, Mills filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC), postmarked October 8 and signed September 27, 2026—both dates after the September 8 deadline. The court liberally construed the SAC in part as a motion for reconsideration or relief from the October 8 judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Rule 7.1.i, noting that a motion to amend after judgment requires reopening the judgment under Rule 59 or 60.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the motion for reconsideration was timely under Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 7.1.i because it was submitted within 28 days of the entry of judgment. However, the court found that Mills offered no explanation for the untimely filing of the SAC and did not articulate any recognized ground for reconsideration—such as manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. The court further found that Mills failed to satisfy Local Rule 7.1.i, which requires a showing of new or different facts or circumstances that did not exist or were not shown previously.
Even if the court were inclined to grant reconsideration, it determined that the SAC would warrant dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim. The SAC again failed to allege facts plausibly showing that Mills suffered a sufficiently serious physical injury due to the defendants' deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm. Instead, Mills repeated allegations that the defendants' verbal remarks were "embarrassing and hurtful" and caused "mental anguish" and "emotional distress," which the court had previously found insufficient under the Prison Litigation Reform Act's physical injury requirement, citing Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 627 (9th Cir. 2002), and Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012). The court denied the motion for reconsideration or relief from judgment, and the case remains closed.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se prisoner's untimely amended complaint filed after judgment will be construed as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), but the movant must articulate a valid ground for relief.
- Mere verbal harassment, embarrassment, or emotional distress without a physical injury does not state an Eighth Amendment claim under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
- Failure to comply with a court-ordered amendment deadline can result in dismissal for failure to prosecute, and a late filing does not automatically reopen the case.
- Local Rule 7.1.i requires a movant to identify new or different facts or circumstances that were not previously presented; a bare request to amend is insufficient.
- Courts have considerable discretion in ruling on Rule 59(e) motions and may deny them where the proposed pleading would still fail to state a claim.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the procedural rigor applied to prisoner civil rights cases in the Ninth Circuit, particularly the interplay between the PLRA's physical injury requirement, the screening mandates of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and the standards for post-judgment relief under Rules 59(e) and 60(b). It reinforces that pro se litigants, while entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings, must still comply with court deadlines and articulate cognizable legal grounds for reconsideration. The decision also underscores that verbal abuse alone, absent physical injury, remains non-actionable under the Eighth Amendment in this circuit.