West v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 90

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 88 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/19/13. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

Plaintiff Gerald A. West (“Plaintiff”), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

9

pauperis, filed this civil action on July 22, 2009, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

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

) Case No.: 1:09cv01277 LJO DLB (PC)
)
Plaintiff,
)
) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
v.
) MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., ) JUDMGENT
)
) (Document 88)
Defendants.
)
)
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
GERALD A. WEST,

On April 2, 2013, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to grant Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Findings
and Recommendations were adopted on June 25, 2013.
On July 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e). Defendant opposed the motion on July 30, 2013. The matter is deemed
submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
DISCUSSION
Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, Frito–Lay of
Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C.Puerto Rico 1981), considerations of judicial
economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus Local Rule 230(j)(3) requires that a party seeking
reconsideration of a district court’s order must brief the “new or different facts or circumstances
1

1

[which] are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what

2

other grounds exist for the motion.”
Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the alteration or

3
4

amendment of a judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle permitting the

5

unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present “contentions which

6

might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F.Supp.

7

1003, 1009 (C.D.Cal.1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir.1986); Keyes v.

8

National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F.Supp. 277, 280 (E.D.Pa.1991). These holdings “reflect[ ]

9

district courts’ concerns for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial efficiency.”

10

Costello, 765 F.Supp. at 1009.
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,

11
12

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there

13

is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH

14

& Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). In seeking

15

reconsideration, a party “must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision,” and

16

recapitulating arguments the court has previously considered “fails to carry the moving party’s

17

burden).” United States v. Westlands Water District, 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D.Cal.2001)

18

(internal quotation/citation omitted).
Plaintiff’s motion raises no grounds to alter or amend the judgment. Instead, he simply sets

19
20

forth his various disagreements with the Court’s rulings throughout this action. Plaintiff does not forth

21

new evidence, a change in controlling law or any evidence that the Court committed clear error.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

August 19, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb
2