Coffeit v. State of Idaho et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 13 Motion for Reconsideration for Order of Dismissal by District Judge. Plaintiff shall file nothing further in this closed case other than a notice of appeal. Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

THOMAS JEFFERSON COFFELT,
Case No. 1:12-cv-00054-CWD
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
STATE OF IDAHO and CORIZON
HEALTH SERVICES,
Defendants.

On June 27, 2013, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint in
this civil rights case without prejudice and entered judgment against Plaintiff because
Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. (Dkt. 11 & 12.) Plaintiff has now filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. 13.)
1.

Withdrawal of Consent to the Jurisdiction of this Court
As an initial matter, because Plaintiff entitled his motion a “Motion for

Reconsideration for Order [of] Dismissal by District Judge,” it is possible to construe
Plaintiff’s Motion as an attempt to withdraw his consent to proceed before a United States
Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of this Court to enter final orders
in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (See Dkt. 4.) Because Plaintiff is the only party
appearing in this case, the Court had jurisdiction to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint and enter final judgment. (See Order, Dkt. 11.) “There is no absolute right, in a
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

civil case, to withdraw consent to trial and other proceedings before a magistrate judge.”
Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff has not shown any
extraordinary circumstances that would justify vacating Plaintiff’s consent, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c)(4), particularly given that Plaintiff did not request a withdrawal prior to the
Court entering judgment against him. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to withdraw
his consent to the jurisdiction of this Court, the motion is denied.
2.

Motion for Reconsideration
Although Plaintiff does not identify the authority upon which he bases his Motion

for Reconsideration, a party may request reconsideration of a final judgment (1) under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) by filing a motion to alter or amend the
judgment, or (2) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) by filing a motion for relief
from judgment.
A.

Legal Standards

Reconsideration of a final judgment under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy,
to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”
Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks
omitted). A losing party cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion to relitigate old matters or to
raise arguments that could have been raised before the entry of judgment. Sch. Dist. No.
1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). As a result,
there are four limited grounds upon which a motion for reconsideration may be granted:
(1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of fact or law; (2) the moving party
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

presents newly discovered evidence; (3) reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest
injustice; or (4) there is an intervening change in the law. Turner v. Burlington N. Santa
Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003).
Under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may grant a
party relief from a final judgment for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud,
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the
judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; or (6) any other reason that justifies
relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The last catch-all provision should only be granted
“sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice.” United States v.
Washington, 98 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted).
B.

Discussion

Precluding relief under Rule 59(e) is the lack of any manifest error of law or fact,
any newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, any manifest injustice, or any
intervening change in controlling law. Plaintiff claims that the “issues” raised in his
Complaint were “found colorable in another action,” namely, Watkins v. Idaho Board of
Pardons & Parole, 1:06-cv-00079-EJL (filed Feb. 22, 2006; closed February 26, 2008).
(See Mot. for Recons., Dkt. 13, at 1-2.) However, the fact that Plaintiff may have asserted
constitutional claims that, if properly pleaded and supported, could have been actionable
does not change the fact that, despite multiple chances, Plaintiff did not allege sufficient
supporting facts to proceed on any such claims. (See Order dated June 27, 2013, Dkt. 11.)
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Precluding relief under Rule 60(b) is Plaintiff’s similar failure to meet any of the
grounds cited in that Rule. Plaintiff’s Motion adds nothing to Plaintiff’s claims. He states
only that he received “no medical on my injurer [sic] ankle,” “no programs so I can be
releast [sic],” and “no law library (etc) find in your pleadings.” (Mot. for Recons. at 2.)
These allegations are too vague and general for Plaintiff to establish that he should be
allowed to proceed on his claims.
Plaintiff has not carried his burden to show manifest injustice or any other basis for
reconsideration. Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion for Reconsideration.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration for Order [of] Dismissal by District
Judge (Dkt. 13) is DENIED.

2.

Plaintiff shall file nothing further in this closed case other than a notice of
appeal.

DATED: August 26, 2013

Honorable Candy W. Dale
United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4