Joyner v. Christon et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that (1) Plaintiffs motion, captioned as a Motion Requesting Leave of the Court to File Objecting to Judge Winmills Unauthorized Presiding in Plaintiffs Tort Claim and to Reconsider Dismissal of Plaintiff s Tort Action (Dkt. 37 ), is DENIED.(2) Plaintiffs identical motion (filed at Dkt. 38 ) is DEEMED MOOT. 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
MIGUEL CHARLES JOYNER,

Case No. 1:15-cv-00472-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION &
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. B. CHRISTON, TERRIE
ROSENTHAL, CLINTON E.
BLAKE, JESSE HALL; SGT.
MELODEE ARMFIELD; RANDY
BLADES, and IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
On November 13, 2018, this Court granted summary judgment in
defendants’ favor. Plaintiff Miguel Charles Joyner asks the Court to reconsider that
ruling. See Dkt. 37. For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the
motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Plaintiffs’s motion is captioned as a “Motion Requesting Leave of the Court
to File Objecting to Judge Winmill’s Unauthorized Presiding in Plaintiff’s Tort
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER - 1

Claim and to Reconsider Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Tort Action.” See Dkt. 37. The
Court will construe the motion as one for reconsideration under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59.
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 postjudgment motion to reconsider as a means of litigating old matters or presenting
arguments that could have been raised 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 N. Santa Fe
R.R., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
ANALYSIS
Mr. Joyner does not address these four limited grounds in his motion.
Instead, he generally complains that the district court exhibited “extreme bias” in
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER - 2

failing to sanction defendants and otherwise failed to “completely address
Plaintiff’s exhibits/evidence presented showing his non-culpability in his claim
before the Court.” Motion, Dkt. 37, ¶¶ 3, 4.
These types of general, conclusory arguments do not satisfy the exacting
legal standard described above. That is, Mr. Joyner has not identified a manifest
error of law or fact; he has not come forward with newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence; he has not explained how his motion is necessary to prevent
manifest injustice; and he has not identified an intervening change in the law. See
Turner, 338 F.3d at 1063. The Court will therefore deny his motion for
reconsideration.
Finally, the Court will address Mr. Joyner’s assertion that the undersigned
judge “lacked judicial authority to preside” in this case. Motion, Dkt. 37, ¶ 2. Here,
Joyner points out that United States Magistrate Judge Ronald Bush signed earlier
orders in this case, including a Successive Review Order, Dkt. 16, as well as an
Order denying Plaintiff’s Request to Disqualify Judge. See Apr. 18, 2016 Order,
Dkt. 11, at 2. On November 16, 2017, however, this case was reassigned to the
undersigned judge. See Nov. 16, 2017 Order of Reassignment, Dkt. 21. Joyner did
not complain about the reassignment in 2017, when it occurred, nor could he have.
United States Magistrate Judges cannot preside over civil cases unless all named
parties consent, which they did not. Judge Bush was thus obligated to, and did,
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER - 3

reassign this case to an Article III judge. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 73; 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
(1) Plaintiff’s motion, captioned as a Motion Requesting Leave of the Court
to File Objecting to Judge Winmill’s Unauthorized Presiding in
Plaintiff’s Tort Claim and to Reconsider Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Tort
Action (Dkt. 37), is DENIED.
(2) Plaintiff’s identical motion (filed at Dkt. 38) is DEEMED MOOT.
DATED: April 15, 2019
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER - 4