Shehee v. Nguyen et al

Filing 24

ORDER Denying Reconsideration (Doc. 22 ), signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 1/25/2016. (Fahrney, E)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,
Case No. 1:14-cv-01154-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
vs.
DR. KIM NGUYEN, et. al.,
Defendants.

At Docket 22 Gregory Ell Shehee has moved the Court to reconsider its Order
dismissing the First Amended Complaint.1
Under the law of the case doctrine a court is generally precluded from reconsidering
an issue that has already been decided by the same or a higher court in the same case.2
However, the law of the case doctrine is not a shackle without a key.
Federal Rule Civil Procedure 59 governs post-judgment motions to amend judgment
or for new trial, not interlocutory orders. If the court enters an interlocutory order without
entering a final judgment, e.g., an order granting summary judgment but no final judgment
is entered under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 54, Rule 59 does not apply.3 Likewise, Rule

1

Docket 21.

2

Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir. 1993).

3

United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2000).

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
Shehee v. Nguyen, 1:14-cv-01154-RRB – 1

60(b) by its very terms applies solely to final judgments.4 However, as long as a district
court retains jurisdiction over a case, it has inherent power to reconsider and modify an
interlocutory order for sufficient cause.5
That inherent power is not unfettered: a court may depart from the law of the case
doctrine where: “(1) the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a
manifest injustice, (2) intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration appropriate,
or (3) substantially different evidence was adduced at a subsequent trial.”6
In this case, only the first ground, clearly erroneous applies. Nothing in the pending
motion indicates that the Court clearly erred in dismiss the First Amended Complaint with
leave to amend.7
Accordingly, the Motion Requesting Reconsideration for Corrections of the First
Amended Complaint at Docket 22 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of January, 2016.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005); Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 825,
833 (9th Cir. 2013); Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. v. PPR Realty, Inc., 204 F.3d
867, 880 (9th Cir. 2000).
5

City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir.

2001).
6

Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1489 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (footnote and
internal quotes omitted); see Leslie Salt Co. v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1393 (9th Cir.
1995); School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263
(9th Cir. 1993).
7

The Court notes that subsequently Shehee filed his Second Amended Complaint.
Docket 23. This effectively renders the motion moot in any event.
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
Shehee v. Nguyen, 1:14-cv-01154-RRB – 2