Lopez v. Cate et al

Filing 34

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 32 Motion for Reconsideration (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11

JOSE LOPEZ,

12
13
14
15
16

No. C 11-2644 YGR (PR)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
Defendants.
/

17
18

This is a closed federal civil rights action. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was

19

granted, and judgment in granted in favor of defendants, on September 30, 2012. Plaintiff

20

has filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the Court construes as containing a

21

motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 32).

22

Where, as here, the Court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order, a motion

23

for reconsideration may be based either on Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of

24

Civil Procedure. “Under Rule 59(e), it is appropriate to alter or amend a judgment if ‘(1) the

25

district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed

26

clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an

27

intervening change in controlling law.’” United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc.,

28

No. C 11-2644 YGR (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOT. FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

555 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734,

2

740 (9th Cir. 2001)). Here, plaintiff’s request contains no showing of newly-discovered

3

evidence, or that the Court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was

4

manifestly unjust, or that there was an intervening change in controlling law.

5

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown:

6

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that

7

by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the

8

adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; (6) any other

9

reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d

10

1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). Although couched in broad terms, subparagraph (6) requires a

11

showing that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary. See Twentieth Century-Fox

12

Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). Here, plaintiff’s request

13

contains no showing of newly-discovered evidence, nor does it set forth any mistake,

14

inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, fraud by the adverse party, or voiding of the

15

judgment; plaintiff offers no other reason justifying relief. Accordingly, the motion for

16

reconsideration is hereby DENIED. The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 32.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

November 27, 2012
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

No. C 11-2644 YGR (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOT. FOR RECONSIDERATION