Stevenson v. Jones

Filing 40

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT 39 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/21/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHARLES L. STEVENSON,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-05241-SI
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 39

M. JONES,
Defendant.

12
13

On May 30, 2017, the court granted defendants‟ motion for summary judgment and

14

entered judgment against plaintiff. On June 14, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the

15

judgment, which the court construes to be a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

16

A Rule 59(e) motion seeks to “alter or amend the judgment” and must be filed within 28

17

days after judgment is entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “[A]ltering or amending a judgment [under

18

Rule 59(e)] is an „extraordinary remedy‟ usually available only when (1) the court committed

19

manifest errors of law or fact, (2) the court is presented with newly discovered or previously

20

unavailable evidence, (3) the decision was manifestly unjust, or (4) there is an intervening change

21

in the controlling law.” Rishor v. Ferguson, 822 F.3d 482, 491-92 (9th Cir. 2016); see also

22

McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc).

23

Plaintiff‟s motion to alter or amend the judgment largely repeats arguments and

24

contentions he already presented to the court and fails to convince the court to disturb the order

25

granting defendants‟ motion for summary judgment or the judgment. Two of his arguments

26

warrant mention. First, he suggests there is some unspecified information that might enable him

27

to prove his case, but fails to explain why he did not make discovery requests to obtain that

28

information in the year before summary judgment was granted. (Docket No. 6 at 4 (May 2, 2016

1

order of service permitting the parties to engage in discovery without need for further court

2

order)). Second, he urges that counsel should be appointed to assist him, but fails to show any

3

legal or factual error in the court‟s April 11, 2017 order denying his request for appointment of

4

counsel. The court will not appoint counsel in this action in which judgment has been entered.

5

Plaintiff fails to show that the court committed manifest error of law or fact, does not present new

6

evidence; does not show that the summary judgment decision was manifestly unjust; and does not

7

show an intervening change in controlling law. For these reasons, plaintiff‟s motion to alter or

8

amend the judgment is DENIED. (Docket No. 39.)

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 21, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2