Blackshire v. Napa State Hospital

Filing 9

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/03/18 DENYING 8 Motion to Reopen/for Reconsideration. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PATRICK BLACKSHIRE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:16-cv-02536-TLN-DB

ORDER

NAPA STATE HOSPITAL,
Defendant.

16
17

On September 28, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein,

18

which were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and

19

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff did not file any

20

objections to the findings and recommendations. On January 8, 2018, this Court adopted the

21

findings and recommendations, and Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4) was

22

dismissed without leave to amend. (ECF No. 6.) The case was accordingly closed.

23

On March 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Request for Reconsideration.” (ECF

24

No. 8.) In his request, Plaintiff vaguely argues that he lost track of time due to mental illness and

25

was incarcerated when his case was closed. (ECF No. 8.) The Court construes this as a motion

26

for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

27

Rule 59(e) states, “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28

28

days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Court filed its Order (ECF No.
1

1

6) on January 8, 2018. Plaintiff filed the instant motion (ECF No. 8) on March 8, 2018, two

2

months after the entry of judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is untimely.

3

Moreover, “[u]nder Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent

4

highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered

5

evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389

6

Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court has carefully

7

reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 8). The Court still finds the

8

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Simply put,

9

Plaintiff’s motion is untimely, and the Rule 59(e) standard is not met here. Consequently, this

10
11
12
13

case is closed.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 8) is hereby
DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: October 3, 2018

16
17
18
19

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2