Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff John Angel Salcida, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserting civil rights claims against multiple correctional officers and staff. On September 3, 2026, the court screened the FAC under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and determined that claims against Defendants J. Lewis, Wong, Amaya, Cota, Garcia, and Gomez survived screening, but claims against Defendants Sanchez, Tito, Velasco, and M. Lewis did not. The court dismissed the latter claims without further leave to amend, having already instructed the plaintiff on the pleading deficiencies, and ordered service on the remaining defendants.
On September 8, 2026, Salcida filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Screening Order under Rule 60, explicitly stating the motion was also intended to preserve issues for appeal. The motion did not present new facts or evidence but re-argued the sufficiency of the dismissed allegations and contested the denial of an additional opportunity to amend the complaint as to the four dismissed defendants.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion for reconsideration. Applying Southern District of California Civil Local Rule 7.1(i), the court held that a moving party must demonstrate new or different facts or circumstances that did not exist or were not shown at the time of the original ruling. The plaintiff failed to make this showing, merely repeating allegations previously found insufficient and arguing the court erred in denying further leave to amend.
The court construed the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), as it was filed within 28 days of the screening order. Citing Ninth Circuit precedent, the court noted that Rule 59(e) relief requires newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law. The plaintiff satisfied none of these grounds. The motion was denied in full.
Key Takeaways
- A motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7.1(i) requires a showing of new or different facts or circumstances; re-arguing previously rejected legal theories is insufficient.
- When filed within 28 days of a screening order, a reconsideration motion is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment, requiring newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in law.
- A district court may dismiss claims without leave to amend at the screening stage under § 1915A if it has already identified the pleading deficiencies to the plaintiff.
- Preserving issues for appeal does not constitute a valid ground for granting a motion for reconsideration in the district court.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the strict standards governing post-judgment motions in prisoner civil rights cases within the Ninth Circuit. It clarifies that a screening order dismissing claims without leave to amend is a final order subject to reconsideration only under the narrow grounds of Rule 59(e) or Local Rule 7.1(i), and that a motion for reconsideration cannot serve as a vehicle to re-litigate pleading sufficiency absent new facts, clear error, or a change in law. The court's application of the Rule 59(e) standard, rather than Rule 60(b), reflects the well-established principle that a motion filed within 28 days of the challenged order is properly construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment.
The decision underscores the gatekeeping function of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and the limited discretion district courts have to revisit screening determinations once deficiencies have been identified and addressed. It also confirms that a plaintiff's stated intent to preserve issues for appeal does not alter the substantive standard for reconsideration. For pro se prisoner litigants, this order serves as a reminder that the screening process is not an open-ended opportunity for amendment, and that once a court has identified pleading deficiencies and dismissed claims without leave to amend, the path to appellate review lies through a direct appeal rather than through repeated motions for reconsideration that merely re-argue previously rejected contentions.