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)

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