Adams v. Albertson et al

Filing 246

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND VACATING MAY 31 HEARING by Hon. William Alsup.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MARK LETELL ADAMS,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

No. C 10-04787 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND
VACATING MAY 31 HEARING

RONALD ALBERTSON, et al.
Defendants.
/

16

In this Section 1983 action, pro se plaintiff Mark Adams moves pursuant to Rules 59 and

17

60 to amend or, in the alternative, seek relief from the final judgment that was issued against him

18

on February 10, 2012 (Dkt. No. 209). For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.

19

Under Rule 59(e), reconsideration is appropriate if the district court “(1) is presented

20

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

21

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J,

22

Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Under Rule 60(b),

23

reconsideration is appropriate upon a showing of “(1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)

24

newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged

25

judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify relief.” Ibid.

26

Plaintiff’s motion mostly rehashes arguments that defendants violated plaintiff’s

27

constitutional rights by conducting a warrantless search and failing to read Miranda rights while

28

he was allegedly in custody. These arguments were addressed at length in the summary

1

judgment order and that discussion will not be repeated here (Dkt. No. 209). The summary

2

judgment decision was not erroneous and plaintiff has not raised any new material facts or cited

3

any change in controlling law that would warrant reconsideration.

4

Plaintiff also raises a new legal theory for finding liability: the probable cause hearing

5

for his arrest in 2010 was not proper under Gerstein. This allegation does not appear in his

6

complaint, it was not raised at summary judgment, and there was (and is) no evidence in the

7

record to support this theory. Plaintiff’s new legal theory does not satisfy the requirements of

8

Rules 59 or 60, which do not permit a party “to raise arguments or present evidence that could

9

have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” See Exxon Shipping v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

486 fn. 5 (2008).
Plaintiff also alleges that summary judgment was based on a “fraudulent affidavit

12

asserted by Defendant Ronald Anderson.” But plaintiff neither points to what the fraudulent

13

statement was nor cites to any supporting evidence of fraud. This argument is rejected.

14

Plaintiff also alerts the Court of three events that occurred after the entry of judgment in

15

February 2012. First, plaintiff’s wife committed an act of domestic violence against him and no

16

arrest was made. Second, he reported an alleged violation of doctor-patient confidentiality to the

17

Department of Health and Human Services. Third, he filed an employment discrimination action

18

against his temporary employer. None of these new facts are material to the issue decided by the

19

summary judgment order: whether police officers violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights during

20

his 2010 arrest.

21

For the reasons stated, the motion to amend or, in the alternative, seek relief from

22

judgment is DENIED. The hearing scheduled for May 31 is VACATED pursuant to

23

Local Rule 7-1(b).

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated: May 18, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2