Saunders v. The Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren et al

Filing 50

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 3/9/2012 DENYING 49 "Objections to the District Court Dismissal of this Case" construed as a Request for Reconsideration or Relief from Judgment. (Michel, G)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

ROBERT SAUNDERS,
Plaintiff,

7
v.

8

11

THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA; THE LAW
OFFICES OF ELAINE VAN BEVEREN;
ELAINE VAN BEVEREN,
Individually,

12

Defendants.
________________________________

9
10

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-cv-02559-GEB-KJN
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

13
14

On February 15, 2012, an Order was filed (“Dismissal Order”),

15

which adopted the Magistrate Judge’s December 6, 2011 Findings and

16

Recommendations

in

17

Complaint

prejudice.

18

accordingly on the same day. (ECF No. 48.)

with

full

and

dismissed

(ECF

No.

Plaintiff’s
47.)

Second

Judgement

was

Amended
entered

19

Plaintiff filed “Objections to the District Court Dismissal of

20

this Case on Grounds for Reversible Error” on February 28, 2012. (ECF

21

No. 49.) The Court “construe[s] th[is] filing[] . . . as a request for

22

reconsideration or relief from judgment.” Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc.

23

v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898 (9th Cir. 2001). Further,

24

since the filing was made within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment,

25

it “is treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule

26

of Civil Procedure [(“Rule”)] 59(e)[,]” rather than “a motion for relief

27

from a judgment or order” under Rule 60(b). Id. at 898-99 (applying Rule

28

59(e)’s ten day deadline before its 2009 amendment to twenty-eight

1

1

days)(citation omitted).

2

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.

3
4
5
6
7

Allstate

8

2011)(citation omitted). However, “amending a judgment after its entry

9

[is] an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Id.

Ins.

Co.

v.

Herron,

634

F.3d

1101,

1111

(9th

Cir.

10

(internal

11

reconsideration motion is properly denied where it merely presents

12

arguments previously raised[.]” Lopes v. Vieria, No. 1:06-cv-01243 OWW

13

SMS, 2011 WL 3568600, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011)(citing Blacklund

14

v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985)).

quotation

marks

and

citation

omitted).

Further,

“[a]

15

Plaintiff has not made an adequate showing under any of the

16

four basic grounds for reconsideration referenced above; rather, “[he]

17

reiterates his contentions” raised in his Objections to the Magistrate

18

Judge’s December 6, 2011 Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 37) and

19

his Motion to Strike the same Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 38).

20

The Court considered these arguments in adopting the Magistrate Judge’s

21

December 6, 2011 Findings and Recommendations, as expressly stated in

22

the Dismissal Order. (ECF No. 47, 1:18-24.) For the stated reasons,

23

Plaintiff’s reconsideration motion is DENIED.

24

Dated:

March 9, 2012

25
26
27

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

28
2