Cohea v. Pliler, et al

Filing 346

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 10/6/15 ORDERING that Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing to amend the judgment on any of the referenced grounds. Therefore, Plaintiff's 333 motion is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

DANNY JAMES COHEA,

10
11
12
13

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

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

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

14
Defendants.
15
16
17

On September 8, 2015, the Court issued an order, (ECF

18

No. 338), denying Plaintiff’s August 13, 2015 motion to vacate

19

the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Nine

20

days later, on September 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a reply brief

21

concerning his Rule 59(e) motion. (Pl.’s Reply, ECF No. 339.)

22

Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the September 8,

23

2015 order so the Court may consider his reply brief. (Pl.’s Req.

24

Vacate Sept. 4, 2015 Order, ECF No. 345.) Plaintiff asserts the

25

September

26

constitutional statutory right to file a “reply” to Defendants’

27

‘September 03, 2015 Opposition in violation of this Court’s Local

28

Rule 230(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78.” (Id. at 2.)

8,

2015

order

“deprived

1

Plaintiff

.

.

.

his

1

Plaintiff’s reconsideration request is GRANTED, and the

2

September 8, 2015 order is withdrawn. Therefore, the court now

3

decides

4

reviewing Plaintiff’s reply brief.

Plaintiff’s

August

13,

2015

Rule

59(e)

motion

after

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

634

9

judgment

F.3d

1101,
after

1111
its

10

should

11

(9th

entry

Cir.
[is]

2011).
an

However,

extraordinary

“amending
remedy

a

which

citation omitted).

12

be

used

sparingly.”

Id.

(internal

quotation

marks

and

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.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Id.

20

Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing to amend

21

the

22

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

23

Dated:

judgment

on

any

of

the

referenced

October 6, 2015

24
25
26
27
28
2

grounds.

Therefore,