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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?