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, )

Download PDF
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?