Witte v. Young et al

Filing 62

ORDER denying 47 Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/27/16. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS WITTE,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:14-cv-02439 TLN EFB

Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN YOUNG and JUDY
CARVER,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT

Defendants.

17
18

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Thomas Witte’s Motion for a New Trial and

19

Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. (ECF No. 47.) Defendants Carolyn Young and Judy

20

Carver (jointly “Defendants”) filed separate oppositions to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 49, 52.)

21

Plaintiff filed a reply to the oppositions. (ECF No. 59.) The Court, after considering the briefing

22

by both parties, hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial and Motion to Alter or

23

Amend Judgment (ECF No. 47).

24

Plaintiff moves for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) (“Rule 59(a)”).

25

(ECF No. 47.) Rule 59(a) provides in relevant part that “ [t]he court may, on motion, grant a new

26

trial on all or some of the issues – and to any party – as follows: (A) after a jury trial . . . (B) after

27

a nonjury trial”. “[A] Rule 59(a) motion for new trial is not available on claims or causes of

28

actions for which Plaintiffs never received a trial.” Merrill v. County of Madera, 389 Fed. Appx.
1

1

613, 615 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is inappropriate because the Court

2

dismissed his claims pursuant to a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

3

12(b)(6) allows defendants to move to dismiss a complaint prior to litigation on the merits for

4

failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Here, Plaintiff’s complaint was

5

dismissed with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) because Plaintiff could not allege any facts that

6

would make a § 1983 claim plausible. (ECF No. 45.) As such, Plaintiff’s claims were never

7

litigated at a trial. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial under Rule

8

59(a).

9

Plaintiff further moves to alter or amend this Court’s order adopting Magistrate Judge

10

Brennan’s Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 45) and dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint

11

without leave to amend. (ECF No. 47.) Plaintiff moves to alter the judgment pursuant to Rule

12

59(e). A motion to amend or alter a judgment under Rule 59(e) should not be granted “unless the

13

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

14

intervening change in the controlling law.” Carol v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).

15

Having read and considered the Plaintiff’s motion and reply, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff

16

presented new evidence, demonstrated clear error or established an intervening change in the

17

controlling law. Consequently, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden and hereby

18

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: September 27, 2016

22
23
24

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2