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