Arellano v. Ojeda et al
ORDER Denying 123 Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment under Rule 59(e). The Court has carefully reviewed the entire record of this case and exhaustively reconsidered its previous rulings. The Court is satisfied that it did not commit a ny error. Defendants Mack and Helmick are entitled to qualified immunity from suit and judgment in their favor. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with a blank Notice of Appeal (Civil) form. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 4/23/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service and Plaintiff mailed blank Notice of Appeal (Civil).) (tcf)
Case 3:14-cv-02401-MMA-JLB Document 124 Filed 04/23/20 PageID.756 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RAUL ARELLANO, JR.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-02401-MMA-JLB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 59(E)
E. OJEDA, et al.,
[Doc. No. 123]
Plaintiff Raul Arellano, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings an Eighth
Amendment conditions of confinement claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arising out of
allegations that prison officials failed to adequately respond when his cell toilet clogged
and overflowed over the course of a long weekend in April 2014. As relevant here,
Defendants O. Mack and L. Helmick previously moved for summary judgment on the
ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. See Doc. No. 101. The
Court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of Defendants. See Doc. Nos.
105, 106. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling and judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Doc. No. 114. The Court denied
Case 3:14-cv-02401-MMA-JLB Document 124 Filed 04/23/20 PageID.757 Page 2 of 2
Plaintiff’s motion. See Doc. No. 121. Plaintiff once against moves for reconsideration,
arguing that the Court committed clear error. See Doc. No. 123.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) authorizes courts to provide relief from
judgment by motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). It is appropriate to alter or amend a
judgment pursuant to this rule if “(1) the district court is presented with newly discovered
evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was
manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” United Nat.
Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). To carry the
burden of proof, a moving party seeking reconsideration must show more than a
disagreement with the Court’s decision or a recapitulation of the cases and arguments
previously considered by the court. See United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.
Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). This is because Rule 59(e) may not be used to
relitigate old matters, raise new arguments, or present evidence that could have been
raised prior to entry of the judgment. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486-87
(2008); see also Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding denial of a
Rule 59(e) motion proper where the motion “presented no arguments that had not already
been raised in opposition to summary judgment”). Yet that is precisely Plaintiff’s
intention in bringing the instant motion.
In any event, the Court has carefully reviewed the entire record of this case and
exhaustively reconsidered its previous rulings. The Court is satisfied that it did not
commit any error. Defendants Mack and Helmick are entitled to qualified immunity
from suit and judgment in their favor. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s
motion. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with a blank Notice
of Appeal (Civil) form.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 23, 2020
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?