Pickell v. Sands et al

Filing 47

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 5/9/2014 DENYING 46 Plaintiff's Motion to alter or amend judgment. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAN PICKELL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-0373 TLN DAD PS

v.
STEPHEN SANDS, ET AL.,

15

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Dan Pickell (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, commenced this action by the filing

18

of a complaint on February 14, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on or

19

about June 9, 1994, Plaintiff obtained a California State Contractors License. (ECF No. 1 at 3.)1

20

On September 20, 2011, the California Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”), issued to R P

21

Heating & Sheet Metal, which Plaintiff operated, a Notice of Unsatisfied Final Liability. (ECF

22

No. 1 at 8.) The notice stated that on September 16, 2011, the California Franchise Tax Board

23

(“FTB”) had notified the CSLB of R P Heating & Sheet Metal’s outstanding tax liability in the

24

amount of $151,958.36. (ECF No. 1 at 8.) The notice also indicated that pursuant to California

25

Business and Professions Code § 7145.5, proof of the satisfaction of the aforementioned tax

26

liability from the FTB had to be submitted to the CSLB by November 20, 2011, or Plaintiff’s

27
1

28

Page number citations such as this one refer to the page number reflected on the court’s CM/ECF system
and not to page numbers assigned by the parties.

1

1

contractor’s license would be suspended. (ECF No. 1 at 8.) Based on these allegations, the

2

instant complaint alleges causes of action for declaratory relief and violation of Plaintiff’s

3

constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

4

Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on June 19, 2013. (ECF No. 28.)

5

Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on August 6, 2013. (ECF No. 31.)

6

Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition to Defendants’ motion on September 13, 2013, (ECF No.

7

35), and Defendants filed a response on September 16, 2013. (ECF No. 36.) On April 1, 2014,

8

this Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation and granted summary

9

judgment for Defendants. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff now moves to amend the judgment pursuant to

10
11

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (ECF No. 46.)
A court should be loathe to revisit its own decisions unless extraordinary circumstances

12

show that its prior decision was clearly erroneous or would work a manifest injustice.

13

Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988). “A court is generally

14

precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the same court, or a

15

higher court in the identical case.” Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir. 1993)).

16

However, Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order.

17

“Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule

18

offers an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation

19

of judicial resources.’” Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)

20

(quoting 12 James William Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.30(4) (3d ed. 2000)).

21

Therefore, a district court should not grant a motion for reconsideration “unless the district court

22

is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening

23

change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.

24

1999) (citing School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)).

25

Disagreement with a district court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment will not support a

26

motion to alter or amend the judgment. See United States ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse

27

Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002); Rutter Group Prac. Guide Fed. Civ.

28

Trials & Ev. Ch. 20-C.
2

1

“There are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: 1) the motion is

2

necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; 2) the

3

moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 3) the motion is

4

necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or 4) there is an “intervening change in controlling law.”

5

Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations

6

omitted). Moreover, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party filing a motion for reconsideration to

7

show that “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were

8

not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Motions for

9

relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) are addressed to the sound discretion of the district

10
11

court. Exp. Grp. v. Reef Indus., Inc., 54 F.3d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1995).
In the case at issue, Plaintiff’s motion fails to meet any of elements set forth above.

12

Instead, Plaintiff re-visits the same fruitless grounds that have been properly considered,

13

adjudicated, and rejected. Plaintiff cites no newly discovered evidence, no intervening change in

14

controlling law, and makes no showing that the court has “committed clear error or the initial

15

decision was manifestly unjust.” See Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). As

16

such, Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 46.) is hereby DENIED.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 9, 2014

19
20
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3