Allen v. Milas et al

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 03/29/16 ORDERING that plaintiff's 43 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JERRID ALLEN,

12
13
14

No. 1:15-cv-00705-MCE-SAB
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

KEVIN C. MILAS, ET AL.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Jerrid Allen (“Plaintiff”) requests reconsideration of this Court’s Order

18

dismissing his Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 43. A motion

19

for reconsideration is properly brought pursuant to either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

20

59(e) or Rule 60(b).1 Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989). A motion for

21

reconsideration is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion if filed within twenty-eight days of entry

22

of judgment, but as a Rule 60(b) motion if filed more than twenty-eight days after

23

judgment. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892,

24

898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). A motion may be construed as a Rule 59 motion even though it

25

is not labeled as such, or not labeled at all. Taylor, 871 F.2d at 805. Since this motion

26

seeks reconsideration of a final judgment and was timely filed, the Court will treat it as a

27
1

28

All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless
otherwise indicated.

1

1
2

Rule 59(e) motion.
A court should be loath to revisit its own decisions unless extraordinary

3

circumstances show that its prior decision was clearly erroneous or would work a

4

manifest injustice. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817

5

(1988). Nonetheless, in certain limited circumstances, a court has discretion to

6

reconsider its prior decisions.

7

While Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous

8

order, “the rule offers an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of

9

finality and conservation of judicial resources.’” Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop,

10

229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 12 James William Moore, et al., Moore’s

11

Federal Practice § 59.30(4) (3d ed. 2000)). Indeed, a district court should not grant a

12

motion for reconsideration “absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court

13

is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an

14

intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d

15

656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing School Dist. No. 1J v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

16

(9th Cir. 1993)). Mere dissatisfaction with the court’s order, or belief that the court is

17

wrong in its decision, is not grounds for relief under Rule 59(e). Twentieth Century-Fox

18

Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981).

19

Additionally, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party filing a motion for reconsideration

20

to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist

21

or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

22

Rule 59(e) and motions for reconsideration are therefore not intended to “give an

23

unhappy litigant one additional change to sway the judge.” Frito-Lay of P.R., Inc. v.

24

Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.P.R. 1981) (quoting Durkin v. Taylor, 444 F. Supp. 226,

25

233 (N.D. Ohio 1967)).

26

Here, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is deficient in at least two ways. First,

27

Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any newly discovered evidence, shown that the

28

Court committed clear error, or demonstrated an intervening change in controlling law
2

1

since the Court dismissed the action on February 23, 2016. Second, Plaintiff’s failure to

2

comply with Local Rule 230(j) dooms the instant Motion. Although Plaintiff clearly

3

believes that the Court was wrong in dismissing his case, that mere belief is not grounds

4

for relief under Rule 59(e). Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 43) is

5

accordingly DENIED.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 29, 2016

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3