Thompson v. Hartley, et al.

Filing 58

ORDER DENYING 57 Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/22/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

ROBERT E. THOMPSON,

CASE NO. 1: 10-cv-02260-LJO-MJS (PC)

13
14

Plaintiff,

15
16

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER
OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 57)

J. HARTLEY, et al.,

17

Defendants.

18
I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

19
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
20
rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1 & 4.) The action
21
proceeds on an excessive force claim against Defendants Tercero and Campbell. (ECF
22
No. 22.)
23
24

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s May 11, 2015 Motion to alter or amend the judgment
granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and closing the case. (ECF No. 57.)

25
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

26
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows a party to move to alter or amend a
27
judgment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party
28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

from an order for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be ‘used sparingly
as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where
extraordinary circumstances’” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)).
The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control.”
Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103. In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule
230(j) requires a party to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed
to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other
grounds exist for the motion.”

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

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn
Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009),
and “‘[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the
Court’s decision, and ‘recapitulation . . .’” of that which was already considered by the
court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111,
1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp.
834, 856 (D. N.J. 1992)).
III.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff moves to have the order granting Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment altered or amended, but he fails to state how or in what regard it should be
altered or amended. If Plaintiff is seeking a determination that Defendants’ motion be
denied, and the case reopened, Plaintiff has not shown clear error or other meritorious
relief from the Court’s order. Plaintiff references a grievance that was turned into an
internal affairs complaint and requests additional discovery as to when this occurred so
that he can prove his administrative remedies were exhausted. However, it is not clear
how this internal affairs complaint has any bearing on Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate
2

1
2
3
4
5
6

that the administrative grievance process was unavailable to him from March 9, 2009 to
April 19, 2009. Plaintiff does not state what this internal affairs complaint was about,
when he submitted it, how it is relevant to the issues raised in Defendants’ motion, and
why he was unable to bring it to the attention to the Court sooner.
IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment (ECF No. 9.) is DENIED.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

May 22, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

3