Moore v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 41

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 37 Motion to Alter OR Amend Judgment, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/25/2013. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LARRY B. MOORE,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

Case No. 1:10-cv-00806 LJO DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT

SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,
(Document 37

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Larry B. Moore (“Plaintiff”), a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

17
18

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on May 10, 2010. The action was dismissed on April 24,

19

2013, for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
On May 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to

20
21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).1
The Court may grant relief under Rule 59(e) under limited circumstances: (1) an intervening

22
23

change of controlling authority; (2) new evidence has surfaced; or (3) the previous disposition was

24

clearly erroneous and, if uncorrected, would work a manifest injustice. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d

25

1039, 1044 (9th Cir.2001).
Here, Plaintiff presents two arguments for altering the judgment. He first contends that the

26
27

Court “must correct its files of the title of this action” by substituting Governor Brown for Governor

28
1

Plaintiff signed and dated the motion on May 20, 2013.

1

1

Schwarzenegger. While it is sometimes necessary to substitute parties, this is not a ground for

2

altering the judgment. Moreover, the change is unnecessary given the fact that Plaintiff’s action has

3

been dismissed.

4

Second, Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. He then

5

continues to argue that his constitutional rights are being violated by regulations applicable to the

6

prison law library. Plaintiff’s dismissal was not based on a finding of qualified immunity. Instead,

7

the Court screened his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and determined that it failed to

8

state a claim for which relief could be granted.
Finally, Plaintiff’s arguments related to the merits of his claims do not present a basis for

9
10

altering or amending the judgment. There has been no intervening change in the law since the April

11

24, 2013, judgment, and Plaintiff presents no new evidence. Plaintiff’s arguments have also been

12

addressed by the Court in prior rulings in this action, and there is indication that the judgment was

13

clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

18

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 25, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20

DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2