Morales v. Pelican Bay State Prison

Filing 101

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denying 96 Motion to Alter Judgment; granting 98 Motion for Leave to File (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2011)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

JOSE LUIS MORALES,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

11
12

For the Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT

PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON,
JACQUEZ, FERGUSON, and
COLEMAN,
Defendants.

10

United States District Court

No. C 06-4175 PJH (PR)

/
13
14

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Plaintiff had unsuccessfully

15

raised the same claims in state habeas petitions. In granting the only remaining

16

defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the court held that plaintiff’‘s claims were barred

17

by claim preclusion. Plaintiff has filed a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment. See

18

Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e).

19

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

20

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

21

evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the law."' McDowell

22

v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc). A district

23

court does not commit clear error warranting reconsideration when the question before it is

24

a debatable one. Id. at 1256 (district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

25

reconsideration where question whether it could enter protective order in habeas action

26

limiting Attorney General's use of documents from trial counsel's file was debatable).

27

Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted; they are not a

28

substitute for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. Twentieth

1
2

Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981).
Plaintiff cites Alpha Mechanical, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., v.

3

Travelers Casualty & Surety Company, 133 Cal. App. 4th 1319, 1327 (2005), for the

4

proposition that in California preclusion cannot apply unless in the earlier case an

5

adversary hearing was held. Here, both the superior court and the court of appeal rejected

6

plaintiff’s petitions on the merits and without a hearing.

7

It is true that the Alpha court, in setting out the background of California preclusion

8

law, quoted Vella v. Hudgins, 20 Cal.3d 251, 257 (1977): “‘The doctrine of res judicata,

9

whether applied as a total bar to further litigation or as collateral estoppel, rests upon the
sound policy of limiting litigation by preventing a party who has had one fair adversary

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

hearing on an issue from again drawing it into controversy and subjecting the other party to

12

further expense in its reexamination.’” Alpha, 133 Cal. App. 4th at 1327 (quoting Vella, 20

13

Cal.3d at 257) (internal quotation marks omitted). Alpha itself disproves plaintiff’s

14

interpretation of this point, however; in that case the court of appeal held that a dismissal

15

with prejudice before trial was preclusive. Id. at 1331-32. There was no clear error.

16
17

Plaintiff also seeks leave to file an addendum to the motion to alter or amend The
motion (document number 98 on the docket) is GRANTED.

18

In the addendum he asserts that Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2009),

19

cited by this court for its discussion of California preclusion rules, was wrongly decided.

20

This court is bound by Brodheim, and cannot disregard it. The addendum provides no

21

basis for altering or amending the judgment.

22

Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment (document number 96) is DENIED.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: September 19, 2011.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
P:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.06\MORALES175.recon2.wpd

2