Cohea v. Pliler, et al

Filing 338

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/4/15 ORDERING that Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Judgment 333 is DENIED.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

DANNY JAMES COHEA,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

No. 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB

v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT

J. COLVIN, D. McCARGAR, S.L.
BAUGHMAN, M.A. MICHEELS, R
YAMAMOTO, SD AKIN, D. ADAMS,
A GOLD, and S. SCARSELLA,
Defendants.

14
15
16

Trial commenced in this action on July 28, 2015. On

17

July 30, 2015, the Court granted each Defendant’s motion for

18

judgment as a matter of law, and judgment was entered accordingly

19

on August 4, 2015. On August 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion

20

to vacate the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

21

59(e), arguing the Court violated his due process rights and his

22

right

23

Specifically, Plaintiff argues the Court incorrectly limited the

24

claims

25

obstructed Plaintiff’s presentation of evidence at trial, allowed

26

the jury to be tarnished by one

27

permitted the jury to see Plaintiff while in wrist restraints.

28

(Id.)

to

to

a

jury

be

trial.

presented

(Pl.’s

at

Mot.

trial

1

Vacate

in

its

2,

ECF

No.

pretrial

333.)

orders,

potential juror’s bias, and

1

Defendants oppose the motion, rejoining, “Plaintiff’s

2

moving papers do not meet his burden of demonstrating cause to

3

alter or amend the judgment” under Rule 59(e). (Defs.’ Opp’n to

4

Mot. Vacate 2:19-20, ECF No. 336.) Defendants argue:

5

Plaintiff’s moving papers do not identify any
newly
discovered
evidence,
clear
error
committed by the District Judge, or an
intervening change in the controlling law.
Rather, Plaintiff submits a vague statement
that the District Judge violated his due
process rights and right to a jury trial, and
he complains about jury selection. Notably,
since the District Judge granted Defendants’
motion for judgment as a matter of law, this
case was not submitted to the jury for
determination, and any jury selection issues
are therefore irrelevant. Moreover, Plaintiff
has not submitted evidence or otherwise cited
to the record demonstrating any basis for
amending the Judgment or granting a new
trial.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

(Id. at 2:12-19.)

15

“Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a party

16

may move to have the court amend its judgment within twenty-eight

17

days after entry of the judgment.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron,

18

634

19

judgment

20

should

21

citation omitted).

22
23
24
25
26
27

F.3d

be

1101,
after
used

1111
its

(9th

entry

sparingly.”

Cir.
[is]
Id.

2011).
an

However,

extraordinary

(internal

“amending
remedy

quotation

In general, there are four basic grounds upon
which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: (1)
if such motion is necessary to correct
manifest errors of law or fact upon which the
judgment rests; (2) if such motion is
necessary to present newly discovered or
previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such
motion is necessary to prevent manifest
injustice; or (4) if the amendment is
justified
by
an
intervening
change
in
controlling law.

28
2

a

which

marks

and

1

Id.

2

Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing to amend

3

the

judgment

on

any

of

the

referenced

4

Plaintiff’s motion, (ECF No. 333), is DENIED.

5

Dated:

September 4, 2015

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

grounds.

Therefore,