Rothing v. Phillips

Filing 62

ORDER denying (72) Motion for Reconsideration in case 6:15-cv-00023-JTJ; denying (59) Motion for Reconsideration in case 2:15-cv-00017-JTJ. Signed by Magistrate Judge John Johnston on 9/30/2015. Associated Cases: 6:15-cv-00023-JTJ, 2:15-cv-00017-JTJ (SLL, ) Modified on 9/30/2015 Copy mailed to Rothing (HEG, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION
PETER ROTHING,

CV-15-23-H-JTJ

Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
STEVE BULLOCK, MIKE
SALVAGNI, E. WAYNE PHILLIPS,
MIKE MENAHAN, BLAIR JONES,
VICTOR VALGENTI, MIKE
MANION, JAMES SCHEIER, and
AMBER GODBOUT,
Defendants.
_______________________________

CV-15-17-BU-JTJ

PETER ROTHING,
Plaintiff,
vs.
E. WAYNE PHILLIPS,
Defendant.

On September 21, 2015, Mr. Rothing filed a document entitled “Notices to

Judges Dana Christensen and Brian Morris.” CV 15-23-H-JTJ, Doc. 72. The
Court construes the filing as a motion for reconsideration of the September 2, 2015
Order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss Mr. Rothing’s claims. Doc. 64.
A final Order has been issued in this case; therefore, the undersigned
construes the motion as being filed pursuant to Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 59(e) provides that a motion to alter or amend a
judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment. Mr.
Rothing’s motion was timely filed.
Under Rule 59(e), a district court may, in its discretion, alter or amend a
judgment if “the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that
was manifestly unjust.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th
Cir. 2001). “A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) should not be granted,
absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with
newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening
change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th
Cir. 1999) (en banc) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656,
665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Federal
district courts enjoy broad discretion to amend or refuse to amend judgments under
Rule 59(e). McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1256 (citation omitted).
Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following

is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence that with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered
before the time to move for a new trial under Rule 59; (3) fraud by an opposing
party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Although
couched in broad terms, subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds
justifying relief are extraordinary. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. V.
Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th cir. 1981).
Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted;
they are not a substitute for appeal or a means for attacking some perceived error
of the Court. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d at 1341.
Mr. Rothing’s only argument seems to be that I am issuing unlawful orders
without jurisdiction. His current motion simply restates prior arguments. There is
no showing of materially different facts or law or that new material facts have
emerged or that there has been a change in the law. Mr. Rothing has not made a
showing that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary. Defendants have been
dismissed on the grounds of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and immunity. These
are questions of law to be determined by the Court. Crooks v. Maynard, 913 F.2d
699, 700 (9th Cir. 1990). The motion will be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Rothing’s “Notices to Judges Dana Christensen

and Brian Morris,” CV 15-23-H-JTJ, Doc. 72, and CV 15-17-BU-JTJ, Doc. 59 as
construed for motions for reconsideration are DENIED.

Dated the 30th day of September, 2015.