Dean v. Zhang et al

1
24-cv-413-RSH-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JERMAINE MICHAEL DEAN,
CDCR #GI-6959,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. R. Y. ZHANG,
Defendant.
Case No.: 24-cv-413-RSH-JLB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT
[ECF No. 52]
Plaintiff Jermaine Michael Dean, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit
on February 28, 2024. ECF No. 1. On January 13, 2026, the Court granted Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s operative pleading, the Second Amended
Complaint. ECF No. 50. Judgment was entered the same day. ECF No. 51.
On January 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to amend the judgment
pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 52. Defendant
opposes the motion. ECF No. 60. As set forth below, the motion is denied.
I. 	LEGAL STANDARD
“Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous
order, the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of
finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229
Case 3:24-cv-00413-RSH-JLB Document 63 Filed 03/11/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
24-cv-413-RSH-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A motion for
reconsideration 	under 	Rule 	59(e) 	‘should 	not 	be 	granted, 	absent 	highly 	unusual
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’”
McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting 389 Orange St.
Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). “A Rule 59(e) motion may not be
used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably
have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir.
2003).
II. 	DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues, first, that in this lawsuit he faced “continuous denial for discovery
from the Counsel for the Defendant,” ECF No. 52 at 2, and indicates that he made a Public
Records Act request that was not honored, id. at 3. He also states that his motion for
appointment of counsel cited the need for discovery. Id. Plaintiff’s motion does not explain
how any specific discovery that he was denied would have been relevant to the Court’s
summary judgment order. To the extent Plaintiff is taking issue with the U.S. Magistrate
Judge’s order denying his motion to compel discovery, ECF No. 43, Plaintiff does not
expressly say so, and does not identify any deficiency in its reasoning.
Second, Plaintiff argues that “[t]he medical records retrieved through the institution
more than show that the statements that [Defendant] made in his Motion for Summary
Judgment, and that were recited in the Order are contrary to fact. Drs. A[]mory and Seiden
were not the hold up, in fact both stated that the delay in the surgery is why Plaintiff will
continue to have the problems and degeneration of his ability to use his arm and hand, due
to nerve damage.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff does not cite to the record for this assertion.
Furthermore, nothing in Plaintiff’s Rule 59 motion appears to take issue with the Court’s
determination, in its summary judgment order, that there was insufficient evidence from
which a jury could conclude that Defendant—who referred Plaintiff for an orthopedic
surgical consultation the same day he correctly diagnosed Plaintiff’s condition, and who
Case 3:24-cv-00413-RSH-JLB Document 63 Filed 03/11/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
24-cv-413-RSH-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
thereafter submitted a surgical request immediately after surgery was approved—acted
with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. See ECF No. 50 at 9-10.
Third, Plaintiff contends that the claims of Defendant’s medical expert “are
misleading and contrary to numerous citings by medical board’s recommendations,
including cases cited in numerous federal courts wherein it is discussed the length of time
between the injury and the surgery in order to provide the necessary treatment.” ECF No.
52 at 3. Plaintiff does not provide further specificity, any citation to the record, or any
explanation of how his assertion bears on the Court’s grant of summary judgment.
Plaintiff has not carried his burden to show that he is entitled to the extraordinary
remedy of Rule 59 relief, on the basis of clear error or any other basis.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment [ECF No. 52]
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 11, 2026
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-00413-RSH-JLB Document 63 Filed 03/11/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3