Little Coyote v. Suek et al
Filing
10
ORDER denying 9 Motion to Alter Judgment. Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P (4)(a)(4)(B)(i), the Clerk shall process Little Coyote's filing 9 as a notice of appeal. Signed by Judge Susan P. Watters on 10/21/2015. (EMH, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
FIL D
GCT 2 1 2015
Clerk, U.S District Court
District Of Montana
Billings
CV 15-0076-BLG-SPW
MONTE C. LITTLE COYOTE, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
LORI HARPER SUEK; DAWN
ROBERTS, DONALD W. MALLOY;
CAROLYNS.OSTBY;UNKNOWN
F.B.I. AGENT; UNKNONW B.I.A.
AGENT; UNKNOWN TRIBAL POLICE,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Monte Little Coyote, a federal inmate proceeding without counsel,
filed a Complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents ofFederal
Bureau ofNarcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Doc. 4.) The Complaint was
dismissed September 29, 2015. (Doc. 7.) On October 19, 2015, Little Coyote
filed a "Motion for Leave to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and/or Notice of Appeal; Motion to Stay
and Abey." (Doc. 9.)
A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure may be granted:
(1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or
-1-
fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to
present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if
such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice: or (4) ifthe
amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011).
Little Coyote does not raise any manifest errors of law or fact, any newly
discovered evidence, an intervening change in the law, or a manifest injustice.
Instead, he raises arguments similar to those raised in his Objections to the
Findings and Recommendations filed in this case. (Doc. 6.) He argues that
litigants in other jurisdictions have also filed motions for reconsideration or
objections to reports and recommendations but he does not explain how those
filings would necessarily change this Court's analysis in his case.
He also reargues that the Court's dismissal of his claims prior to service on
Defendants violates Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). This argument, however, has already
been addressed by the Court and will not be reconsidered.
As stated in the Court's prior Order (Doc. 7), Little Coyote is seeking civil
remedies based upon alleged unconstitutional acts which would imply the
invalidity of his conviction. Since his conviction has not been invalidated, his
Complaint is barred by the doctrine set forth inHeckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994). Nothing presented in Little Coyote's motion for reconsideration changes
-2-
the Court's analysis on this issue.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Little Coyote's Motion
for Leave to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 9) is DENIED.
Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i), the Clerk shall process Little
Coyote's filing (Doc. 9) as a notice of appeal.
DATED this
. s-t-
JI. I
day of October, 2015.
A~1.w~
SUSANP. WATTERS
United States District Judge
-3-
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?