Stevenson v. Jones

Filing 40

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

Download PDF
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

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?