Harrison v. Milligan et al

Filing 96

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENTJUDGMENT 92 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/15/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

MARCUS L. HARRISON,

11
12
13
14
15

No. C 09-4665 SI (pr)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT

v.
D.E. MILLIGAN, et al.,

(Docket no. 92)

Defendants.
/

16

Marcus L. Harrison, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights

17

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting a First Amendment claim regarding the confiscation

18

of certain outgoing and incoming mail. On September 21, 2011, the court granted in part and

19

denied in part defendants’ summary judgment motion. Docket no. 20. On March 8, 2013, after

20

further briefing by the parties, the court granted in full defendants’ second motion for summary

21

judgment and entered judgment in favor of all defendants. Docket nos. 90, 91. Harrison has

22

moved to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

23

Procedure. Defendants have opposed the motion.

24

A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) should not be granted, absent highly

25

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

26

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law. McDowell v.

27

Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1254 (9th Cir. 1999) (quotation and citation omitted).

28

The Court has reviewed Harrison’s motion and his declaration and other evidence in

1

support thereof. He objects to the court’s findings and conclusions on summary judgment, but

2

he has not presented any newly discovered evidence that was not before the court when it ruled

3

on defendants’ motions, shown that the court committed clear error, or shown that there has been

4

an intervening change in the controlling law that would change the court’s ruling. Accordingly,

5

the motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is DENIED.

6

This order terminates Docket no. 92.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: August 15, 2013
_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1
2
3

Dated:

_______________________

4

SUSAN ILLSTON

5

United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3