Trumble v. Reinke et al
Filing
79
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 69 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration; granting in part 74 & 75 Plaintiff's Motions for Extension of Time to File Response re 71 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 70 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Responses due by 6/6/2016); denying 76 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
CHARLES TRUMBLE,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00256-BLW
Plaintiff,
v.
BRENT REINKE, et. al.,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Defendants.
The Court has before it Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 69),
Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Dkt. 74), Plaintiff’s motion for extension of
time(Dkt. 75), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 76).
A motion to reconsider an interlocutory ruling requires an analysis of two
important principles: (1) Error must be corrected; and (2) Judicial efficiency demands
forward progress. The former principle has led courts to hold that a denial of a motion to
dismiss or for summary judgment may be reconsidered at any time before final judgment.
Preaseau v. Prudential Insurance Co., 591 F.2d 74, 79-80 (9th Cir. 1979). While even
an interlocutory decision becomes the “law of the case,” it is not necessarily carved in
stone. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded that the “law of the case” doctrine
“merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been
decided, not a limit to their power.” Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444 (1912).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
“The only sensible thing for a trial court to do is to set itself right as soon as possible
when convinced that the law of the case is erroneous. There is no need to await
reversal.” In re Airport Car Rental Antitrust Litigation, 521 F.Supp. 568, 572 (N.D.Cal.
1981)(Schwartzer, J.).
The need to be right, however, must co-exist with the need for forward progress. A
court’s opinions “are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and
reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure.” Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc.,
123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D.Ill.1988).
Reconsideration of a court’s prior ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) is appropriate “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.” S.E.C. v. Platforms
Wireless Int’l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1100 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). If the
motion to reconsider does not fall within one of these three categories, it must be denied.
Rule 59 is not intended to provide litigants with a “second bite at the apple.”
Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001). Instead, 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). A losing party cannot use a post-judgment motion to reconsider
as a means of litigating old matters or presenting arguments that could have been raised
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
before the entry of judgment. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS,
Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
As a result, there are four limited grounds upon which a motion to alter or amend
judgment may be granted: (1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or
fact; (2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence;
(3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) there is an intervening
change in the law. Turner v. Burlington North. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063
(9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff has essentially made the same arguments he made in its earlier briefs.
Thus, Plaintiff has not met his burden. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion for
reconsideration.
Plaintiff has not set forth any evidence that the Court should stay the pending
motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d). However, given the Plaintiff’s
limited access to the prison library, the Court will grant Plaintiff a short extension of time
to file his response to the motions. The Court will not, however, appoint counsel for
Plaintiff.
ORDER
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 69) is DENIED.
2.
Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Dkt. 74), and Plaintiff’s motion for
extension of time(Dkt. 75), are GRANTED in part. Plaintiff shall file his
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
response to the pending motions for summary judgment on or before June
6, 2016.
3.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 76) is DENIED.
DATED: May 23, 2016
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
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?