Alexander v. Ybarra et al
Filing
44
ORDER DENYING 37 Plaintiff's Motion to Alter the Judgment signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/5/2019. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DARRION LARRY ALEXANDER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 1:17-cv-00804-DAD-SAB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO ALTER THE JUDGMENT
v.
G. YBARRA, et al.,
(Doc. No. 37)
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff Darrion Larry Alexander is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
17
18
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
19
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On November 27, 2018, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and
20
21
dismissed this action, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative
22
remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. Nos. 35, 36.) On December 17, 2018, plaintiff filed the
23
instant motion to alter the judgment. (Doc. No. 37.)
Following the filing the filing of this motion, on January 2, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of
24
25
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was assigned case
26
number 19-15025. (Doc. Nos. 38–40.) On January 8, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an order
27
holding the appeal in abeyance pending this court’s ruling on plaintiff’s December 17, 2018,
28
/////
1
1
motion to alter the judgment. (Doc. No. 41.) On January 9, 2019, defendants filed an opposition
2
to plaintiff’s motion to alter the judgment. (Doc. No. 42.)
3
The court has reviewed plaintiff’s motion and finds that it essentially reiterates the
4
arguments already considered and rejected by this court. Mere disagreement with the court’s
5
prior ruling provides no basis to grant a motion to amend or alter the judgment. See Kilgore v.
6
Colvin, No. 2:12-CV-1792 CKD, 2013 WL 5425313, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2013) (“Whatever
7
may be the purpose of Rule 59(e) it should not be supposed that it is intended to give an unhappy
8
litigant one additional chance to sway the judge.”); United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134
9
F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (“To succeed [on a Rule 59(e) motion], a party must set
10
forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior
11
decision.”). Because plaintiff has not demonstrated that the court’s prior order was erroneous in
12
any respect, the court finds no basis to grant the requested relief.
13
14
15
16
For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion to alter the judgment (Doc. No. 37) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 5, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?