Beam v. Pasha et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying 32 Motion. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 5/22/2017. Mailed to Beam (TAG)

Download PDF
FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAY 2 2 2017 FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA Clerk, U.S. District Court District Of Montana HELENA DIVISION Missoula CV-15-00086-H-DLC JAMEISON BEAM, Plaintiff, vs. ORDER LARRY PASHA, BEN BOULEY, LT. HARMON, LEROY KIRKEGARD, JANE DOE 1, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 2-20, Defendants. Pending is Plaintiff Jameison Beam's "Motion: Appealing Decision; based on Facts." (Doc. 32.) Mr. Beam argues that the Court issued premature judgments based on false statements. He asks that the judgments be reversed and sanctions imposed. (Doc. 32.) Mr. Beam's filing could be construed as a Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment or as a Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order. A motion for reconsideration filed within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment is considered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e); a later-filed motion is considered under Rule 60(b ). United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 513 F.3d 1085, 1098 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001)). 1 Here, Mr. Beam filed his Motion on May 9, 2017, which was more than twenty-eight days after entry of the June 29, 2016 Judgment (Doc. 19). Accordingly, the Motion must be construed as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b ). The Court has already considered whether the judgment in this case should be vacated pursuant to Rule 60(b). In its February 3, 2017 Order, the Court determined that although summary judgment was improvidently granted, amendment of the judgment was not proper under Rule 60 because Mr. Beam had the opportunity to rebut Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants' conduct did not prevent Mr. Beam from fully and fairly presenting his case. Mr. Beam could have challenged Defendants' misrepresentations of and omission of relevant evidence, but he did not do so. (See February 3, 2017 Order, Doc. 23 at 15-16.) ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Mr. Beam's "Motion: Appealing Decision; based on Facts" (Doc. 32) as construed as a Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judg DATED this 22...Jday of Ma tis DENIED. , 2017. L. Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge United States District Court 2

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?