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)

Download PDF
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

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?