Kakowski v. SGT Gonzales

United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Kakowski v. SGT Gonzales

Trial Court Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Brian KAKOWSKI, Case No.: 24-cv-1314-AGS-BLM CDCR #BF-3315, 4 ORDER DENYING Plaintiff, RECONSIDERATION MOTION 5 v. (ECF 16) 6 Correctional Sergeant GONZALES, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 In both his first and second amended complaints, plaintiff Brian Kakowski brought 10 an access-to-courts claim, claiming that defendants in this case interfered with a different, 11 ongoing lawsuit against prison personnel for failure to protect him from Hepatitis-C 12 exposure. (ECF 6-1, at 10–11; ECF 13, at 4.) Each time, this Court dismissed the 13 access-to-courts claim on screening, finding Kakowski’s deficient allegations left the Court 14 “to guess at the remedy being sought.” (ECF 12, at 8 (cleaned up); ECF 14, at 4 15 (cleaned up).) Now Kakowski seeks reconsideration, pointing out that in his second 16 amended complaint he added allegations that he settled his prior case “for 500 dollars” and 17 “would like to be compensated for” the 4,500-dollar difference between his expected and 18 actual settlement amount. (ECF 16, at 1.) Overlooking for the moment Kakowski’s fatal 19 failure to set forth an appropriate basis for reconsideration—such as “newly discovered 20 evidence,” “clear error,” or “an intervening change in controlling law”—Kakowski’s 21 access-to-courts claim falls short on the merits. See School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 22

5 F.3d 1255

, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 23 “[T]he underlying cause of action” in an access-to-courts claim “is an element that 24 must be described in the complaint just as much as allegations must describe the official 25 acts frustrating the litigation.” Christopher v. Harbury,

536 U.S. 403, 415

(2002) (cleaned 26 up). Simply put, “the complaint should state the underlying claim” “just as if it were being 27 independently pursued.”

Id. at 417

. Because Kakowski’s second amended complaint 28 1 |}contains no additional facts regarding the underlying failure-to-protect claim, his 2 || access-to-courts claim fails. Reconsideration is DENIED. 3 || Dated: April 14, 2025

5 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown