Brandstatt v. California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility, et al.

Filing 32

ORDER Regarding Motion at Docket 26 , signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 12/16/2013. (Marrujo, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WILLIAM HUBERT LLOYD
BRANDSTATT,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00434-RRB

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER REGARDING
MOTION AT DOCKET 26

DR. ANTHONY ENENMOH, C.M.O, et
al.,
Defendants.

I.

PENDING MOTION
On October 28, 2013, Plaintiff William Hubert Lloyd Brandstatt appealed from the

dismissal of his complaint.1 Concurrently with his Notice of Appeal, Brandstatt filed a
document entitled Objections to Judges Findings and Recommendations, citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).2 The Court of Appeals entered an
Order holding the appeal in abeyance pending resolution of Brandstatt’s Objections.3

1

Docket 27.

2

Docket 26.

3

Docket 31.

ORDER [Re: Motion at Docket 26]
Brandstatt v. Enemoh, 1:13-cv-00434-RRB – 1

II.

STANDARD
Because the motion before this Court was filed within 28 days of the date of entry

of judgment, the Court treats it as a motion to alter or amend the judgement under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).4 This Court may grant relief under Rule 59(e) under limited
circumstances: (1) an intervening change of controlling authority; (2) new evidence has
surfaced; or (3) the previous disposition was clearly erroneous and, if uncorrected, would
work a manifest injustice.5
III.

DISCUSSION
In his motion Brandstatt argues that, because the Defendants are trained medical

practitioners, they are bound by their Hippocratic Oath to provide the most efficacious
treatment. Brandstatt contends without citation to authority that the failure to provide the
most efficacious treatment constitutes deliberate indifference. As this Court explained in its
Dismissal Order, the Hippocratic Oath is not the standard applied under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Brandstatt offers no new evidence, nor does he advances an argument that the decision
of this Court was clearly erroneous and, if uncorrected, would work a manifest injustice.
IV.

ORDER
Because it does not meet the applicable standards for relief, the Objection to Judges

Findings and Recommendations at Docket 26, treated as a motion to alter or amend the
judgment, is DENIED.

4

American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. North Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892,
898–99 (9th Cir. 2001).
5

See Circuit City Stores v. Mantor, 417 F.3d 1060, 1064 (9th Cir. 2005); 389
Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.1999); see generally 11
CHARLES ALAN W RIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & MARY KAY KANE, FED . PRAC . & PROC . CIV. §
2810.1 (2d ed.).
ORDER [Re: Motion at Docket 26]
Brandstatt v. Enemoh, 1:13-cv-00434-RRB – 2

The Clerk of the Court is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the
Court for the Ninth Circuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of December, 2013.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER [Re: Motion at Docket 26]
Brandstatt v. Enemoh, 1:13-cv-00434-RRB – 3